RESILIENT RECOVERY An Imperative for Sustainable Development COVER PHOTO Credit: Danilo Victoriano RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The Way Forward for Strengthening Recovery Systems and Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into Post-Disaster Recovery 02
© 2015 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / International Development Association or The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected]. Table of Contents
05 About the authors and contributors 06 Foreword 08 Abbreviations 09 Executive summary 16 Introduction 18 Progress, challenges, and achievements toward resilient recovery 24 Four stages of integrating disaster risk reduction into the recovery process 33 Policy challenges & successful practices for building post-disaster resilience 40 Conclusion: Furthering resilient recovery
03 04
Table of Contents 54 Input Paper 1 REKOMPAK Updates: 2 year review of Rebuilding Indonesia’s Communities After Disasters
56 Input Paper 2 Learning from Disasters: A case study of risk-sensitive disaster recovery and rehabilitation in Gujarat
58 Input Paper 3 Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning in Central America: Concepts, Advances, and the Way Forward
60 Input Paper 4 Building It Back Better to Reduce Risks after Multiple Disaster Events
62 Input Paper 5 The Private Sector Approach of Business Continuity Management Helps Demonstrate the Benefits of Institutionalization
64 Input Paper 6 Summary of Disaster as Opportunity: Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar, and Haiti
67 Input Paper 7 Institutionalizing the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment System and Recovery Planning in the Kyrgyz Republic
70 Input Paper 8 Post-Disaster Recovery: A Tool for Sustainable Development
72 Bibliography 73 Endnotes 73 Photo Credits 74 Glossary About the Authors and Contributors
This paper has been prepared by GFDRR’s Resilient Recovery Team (Track III) in partnership with the institutions and persons listed below. The team would like to individually thank each of the authors below who prepared and shared their written contributions for this paper, or otherwise shared their experiences in the area of resilient recovery and the incorporation of disaster risk reduction in recovery initiatives around the world. We would also like to thank our partners from World Bank Group’s regional teams, the United Nations Development Programme, and the International Recovery Platform for contributing to this report.
Technical Input Papers Author(s)
Disaster as opportunity? Building back better in Aceh, Lilianne Fan, Overseas Development Institute Myanmar and Haiti
Building it Back Better to reduce risks after multiple Graeme Newton, Queensland Reconstruction Authority disaster events (Queensland, Australia)
The private sector approach of business continuity Alessandro Caillat, The World Bank Treasury, Associate management helps demonstrate the benefits of Member of the Business Continuity Institute (AMBCI) institutionalization
Institutionalizing PDNA system and recovery planning in Disaster Risk Management Team for Europe and Central Kyrgyz Republic Asia region, The World Bank Group
REKOMPAK Updates: 2 year review of Rebuilding Iwan Gunawan et al., The World Bank Group Indonesia’s Communities After Disasters
Post-Disaster Recovery: A tool for Sustainable Santosh Kumar, Director, South Asian Association for Development Regional Cooperation
Pre-disaster recovery planning in Central America, CEPREDENAC, IRP, UNDP, and UNISDR concepts, advances and the way forward
Learning from Disasters: A case study of risk-sensitive Pramod K. Mishra, Former Director General, Gujarat disaster recovery and rehabilitation in Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management
05 06
Foreword
Cyclone Phailin, the strongest cyclone in more than Since 2007, the Global Facility for Disaster a decade, made landfall in Odisha, India, in October Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) has worked 2013. Three-meter storm surges and sustained with more than 50 countries to deal with disasters. wind speeds of well over 200 kilometers per hour In partnership with the European Union, United battered the coastline. But amazingly, fewer than Nations Development Programme, and other 50 lives were lost—a dramatic reduction from partners, GFDRR is helping governments define historical precedent. The Odisha State Disaster national action plans for post-disaster recovery, Management Authority, established after a similar improve policy and technical guidelines for storm in 1999, coordinated with national and local reconstruction, and prioritize initiatives to authorities to evacuate over a million residents from strengthen community and economic resilience. vulnerable areas. These efforts saved countless lives, This report, Resilient Recovery: An Imperative for and illustrated the power of advanced planning to Sustainable Development, was produced as an input to help communities mitigate the impact of adverse 2015 Global Assessment Report. The report documents natural events. the challenges in planning and implementing While disasters are always tragic, they also provide post-disaster recovery; examines good practice a unique opportunity to prevent future suffering. in building disaster resilience; and shares lessons The recovery and reconstruction process can learned in strengthening disaster recovery systems. enable communities to build back to more resilient In a context where the intensity and frequency of standards; establishing new systems at local and disasters continue to rise, we hope that this report national levels to protect against similar adverse can inform paths towards resilient recovery, and natural events; and more fundamentally to change strengthen the ability of communities to recover processes that have led to particular vulnerabilities. faster and better from disasters.
Francis Ghesquiere Head, GFDRR Secretariat Manager, DRM Practice Group, The World Bank Group
///Photo Credit/// Richard Reyes
08 Abbreviations
BBB Build Back Better BNPB National Agency for Disaster Management - Indonesia CEPREDENAC Central American Coordination Center for Natural Disasters Prevention CI Core Indicator DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DRM Disaster Risk Management ERRA Earthquake and Reconstruction Authority EU European Union FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GAR Global Assessment Report GFDRR Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery GDP Gross Domestic Product GSDMA Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority HFA Hyogo Framework of Action HRF Haiti Reconstruction Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework NGO Non-Governmental Organization ODI Overseas Development Institute PA Priority for Action PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment SARRC South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation UNDP United Nations Development Program UN ISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Executive Summary
Introduction, scope Key findings from HFA Monitor and methodology The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk This report, Resilient Recovery: An Imperative Reduction (UNISDR)1 has determined that “the for Sustainable Development, documents the main progress made in living up to the expectations challenges and progress around the world in of the HFA in recent years has been qualitative, integrating disaster risk reduction measures into grounded in policies, legislation, and planning post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation. More that lay the foundation for more quantitatively importantly, it recommends policies and practices measurable achievements in the future.” An analysis for strengthening disaster recovery systems that of progress made by signatory countries in the five will help countries protect their hard-earned priority areas for action suggests that changing laws developmental gains. and policies is less challenging than successfully integrating disaster risk reduction measures into The report was developed in support of the Global development patterns. Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, a publication released every two years that monitors Using a ranking system of 1 to 5 to measure and spotlights progress, trends, and challenges in progress from minor to comprehensive, 34 of the the disaster risk reduction arena. Specifically, the 168 signatory nations scored themselves on average Global Assessment Report documents the progress just over 3.0 on progress achieved for integrating made and challenges faced by the 168 signatory disaster risk reduction measures into recovery countries working to implement the disaster risk processes. This score indicates that an institutional reduction priorities and actions agreed upon under commitment exists to integrating disaster risk the 2005 Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA). reduction into disaster recovery measures—but that the achievements are neither comprehensive The findings and recommendations of this report nor sustainable (5.0). Many governments have are based on qualitative and quantitative analyses reported little overall improvement in their ability of recovery experiences, drawn from a myriad of to integrate disaster risk reduction into national sources. Such sources include Regional Hyogo recovery policy and operations since 2007, as Framework for Action Monitors from Africa, Asia evidenced by a score of 3.0 to 3.1 over the course of and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, six years of self-assessment. and Europe; HFA country reports from Barbados, Indonesia, and Italy; input papers from Australia, Not surprisingly, financial constraints were Central America, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz identified as the number one challenge, with roughly Republic, and Pakistan; knowledge notes from Japan; a third of reporting countries listing financing as and nine field-based case studies and four additional a primary limitation on their ability to integrate desk-based studies. disaster resilience into reconstruction efforts. Financial constraints were closely followed by a 09 10
lack of expertise, which about a quarter of reporting term resilience, rather than simply restoring countries identified as a serious impediment. While what existed before the disaster. Recovery and financial and expertise constraints cannot entirely reconstruction methods are increasingly viewed as be solved by a well-structured recovery process, a part of a strategic disaster risk reduction continuum, planned, sequenced, and prioritized recovery can inseparable from preparedness, response, mitigation help alleviate these challenges by properly allocating and sustainable development. funding throughout the process. A wealth of historical and contemporary examples Key findings from country demonstrate how countries have incorporated case studies disaster risk reduction considerations in the design and implementation of disaster recovery programs. Qualitative analyses of country experiences in For example, in Mexico, the government has disaster recovery suggest that there are four adopted an approach called business continuity progressive stages for a country to achieve the management, which calls for risk reduction and successful integration of disaster risk reduction into risk mitigation measures designed to optimize the disaster recovery measures: (a) integrating disaster speed, quality, and coordination of private sector risk reduction into recovery needs assessments; (b) business recovery in a post-disaster situation. These sustained commitment to disaster risk reduction measures ensure that small businesses can resume during recovery planning; (c) incorporating disaster operations more quickly following a disaster. risk reduction in the design and implementation of recovery programs; and (d) translating the gains of Following the 2005 earthquake, Pakistan created a resilient recovery into sustainable development. public subsidy program to support conditional cash transfers for housing reconstruction. By providing Increasingly, post-disaster needs assessments an enabling environment for compliance with “build (led by national governments, and financially back better” standards, the project resulted in more and technically facilitated by the international than 90 percent of new housing meeting seismic community) include detailed diagnostics of pre- resistant construction requirements. The program existing institutional and policy frameworks for was operated through an empowered central agency, disaster risk reduction. These assessments also the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation identify building back better factors to ensure that Authority (ERRA). disaster risk reduction is captured during needs quantifications and integrated in recovery strategies. In over 50 disaster-affected countries since 2007, However, anecdotal evidence suggests that these post-disaster needs assessments—led by national recommendations are successfully implemented governments with support from the Global Facility only when followed by sustained and systematic for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, World Bank recovery planning efforts, such as through national Group, and international development partners— recovery frameworks. have provided a foundation and financial impetus for implementing immediate and longer-term Building longer-term post-disaster disaster resilient recovery measures, like those in resilience Mexico and Pakistan. These assessments, which The growing incidence of recurring and high-impact identify opportunities to integrate disaster risk disasters in recent years has prompted countries reduction and build back better, help countries to place greater emphasis on rebuilding for longer- realize the potential of using recovery and reconstruction to reduce vulnerability to future average country self-assessment of about 3.0 out of ///Photo Credit/// shocks and natural hazards. 5.0. Generally speaking, this outcome may indicate a Ira Peppercorn poor enabling environment for sizeable disaster risk Obstacles to achieving development reduction efforts. However, it is also important to gains through recovery note that disaster recovery received comparatively
In many developing countries, recovery momentum little priority in the Hyogo Framework for Action. is increasingly lost to time gaps between recovery The language of the HFA’s resilient recovery planning and implementation, donor fatigue, and indicator must be improved upon in the post-2015 declining resource commitments. The absence framework for disaster risk reduction. The HFA’s of coordination mechanisms, clear planning indicator on integrating disaster risk reduction guidelines, and defined roles, responsibilities, and measures into recovery and reconstruction does institutional mandates decreases efficiencies across not provide the means for measuring progress, the post-disaster assessment, recovery planning, or guiding the operations and actions of disaster and implementation phases of disaster response. risk managers, policy makers, and politicians. As post-disaster responses increase in time and The successor post-2015 framework for disaster cost, donor attention is quickly diverted to the risk reduction must place greater emphasis on next disaster. anticipatory recovery planning measures, and Since 2007, progress on the HFA’s resilient recovery developing recovery frameworks in post-disaster indicator has been minimal, as demonstrated by the situations that establish mechanisms for financing, 11 12
monitoring, and management of recovery. Finally, referred to as the “institutionalization” of recovery. the phrasing of the post-2015 framework for disaster Furthermore, countries must develop national risk reduction must be based upon an agreed-upon recovery frameworks in an anticipatory manner. By definition of resilient recovery with a corresponding establishing policies, institutional arrangements, and set of results indicators. financing mechanisms for recovery, governments can avoid the post-disaster political pressures, Recommendations for strengthening financial constraints, knowledge gaps, or confusion recovery systems of responsibilities that so often impedes the Recent global knowledge exchanges, including recovery process. the second World Reconstruction Conference, To this effect, GFDRR has developed a UNISDR regional platforms, and the Third UN comprehensive strategic approach to ensure that World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, governments have the capacity to recover from demonstrate the growing international consensus disasters before they strike. The approach has five in favor of strengthening resilient recovery in the service areas that will help to strengthen disaster post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction recovery. The five service areas are briefly discribed and beyond. below. To successfully integrate disaster risk reduction measures into recovery processes, countries must ///Photo Credit/// Phuong Nguyen strengthen recovery systems, which is sometimes ///Improving national and local capacities for existing government capacity for conducting post-
recovery assessment and planning/// disaster recovery, and to appoint a lead agency for recovery and reconstruction. Developing An important first step is the collection, or mechanisms to improve collaboration between expansion, of baseline data for social, physical, public, private, and civil society organizations might an productive infrastructure and services before also help to ensure a more inclusive and well- a disaster. In addition to collecting baseline coordinated recovery, in which all actors are aware data, a country must also review and improve of their responsibilities and objectives during the its national damage assessment guidelines, and recovery process. systematically incorporate the use of post-disaster needs assessments in the recovery process. Finally, ///Strengthening financial systems for recovery/// to improve the efficiency and accuracy of post- In the aftermath of a disaster, it can be difficult to disaster needs assessments, it is essential to develop quickly allocate resources to the sectors that need it the capacity of government staff, private sector most. Countries must ensure financial predictability companies, and civil society to conduct assessments and transparency when integrating risk reduction and formulate recovery plans, and to formally into the recovery process. International financial delineate the roles and responsibilities of all actors institutions can contribute both technically and engaged in the assessment. financially toward the creation of contingency funding mechanisms in less-developed countries,
///Strengthening central policy frameworks and and advanced risk transfer mechanisms in more sector strategies for recovery/// developed or transition economies. Governments must develop national or subnational
///Performance management systems policy standards to guide the recovery process, as
for recovery/// well as sector level recovery strategies, based on international experiences. These policy standards Finally, to monitor the success of the recovery improve the predictability and success of recovery process, a country should adapt international strategies for disasters of various types, scales, and performance management tools to their national impacts. At the national and subnational levels, risk and local recovery contexts. Examples of these tools reduction should be integrated into all development include risk and accountability frameworks, rapid policies and planning, including in strategies procurement systems, monitoring and evaluation to reduce poverty or adapt to climate change. systems, and grievance redress systems. With At the sector level, these policies might include actionable and measurable indicators, countries building codes, with regulations and incentives to can monitor the progress of implementation and encourage compliance. achievement of disaster risk reduction-related recovery goals.
///Strengthening institutional frameworks
for recovery/// The way forward
In addition to policies, countries must strengthen The second World Reconstruction Conference and their overall institutional frameworks for recovery. UNISDR regional platforms, leading up to the Third Following a disaster, it is important to assess UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, recommended several policy and institutional 13 14
actions for national governments, international recovery in the post-2015 framework, building upon development partners, and development this growing consensus from regional platforms cooperation forums for strengthening recovery and preparatory committee sessions, as well as the systems. These recommendations, based on global second World Reconstruction Conference. consensus, are intended to establish formal policies, institutional arrangements, financing mechanisms, and planning frameworks to ensure resilient recovery is a means to sustainable development. At the second World Reconstruction Conference, 37 governments and international development actors recommended the following actions to strengthen disaster recovery systems:
• Promote and ensure efficient, inclusive, and effective recovery and reconstruction interventions and measures through the institutionalization of post disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks.
• Building greater financial resilience and predictability within government to manage and respond to disaster triggered by natural hazards, and formalized strategic and resource commitments towards recovery planning, implementation and performance management.
• Strengthening mechanisms for cooperation with services in areas of recovery and reconstruction that include sharing rosters of experts, capacity building, tools, bi-lateral support between countries, progress monitoring; and standardized approaches for post-disaster assessments and recovery planning frameworks.
• Strengthening capacity for recovery planning and monitoring at the national, local, and community level, and establishing clear roles and responsibilities for all actors in a recovery setting.
The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, to be held in March 2015 in Sendai, Japan, will produce a post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction. The conference presents an opportunity to strengthen the role of resilient
///Photo Credit/// Jose Ramos II 15 16 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
The Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk ///This report demonstrates the essential role of Reduction is a biennial assessment of disaster risk recovery for implementing long-term disaster reduction, and a comprehensive review and analysis risk reduction measures, and proposes a of the natural hazards that affect humanity. Every systematic framework-led approach to
two years, more than 100 participating governments disaster recovery./// To this end, the report shares assess their progress and challenges in achieving the examples from countries that have successfully disaster risk reduction priorities and actions agreed integrated disaster risk reduction in disaster under the 2005 Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). recovery, and developed comprehensive disaster recovery frameworks. Finally, the report provides a The Global Assessment Report brings together revised framework of indicators that are needed in governments, donors, international development the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction, agencies, academia, civil society organizations, and introduces GFDRR’s way forward for integrating and global practitioners to assess how disaster disaster risk reduction into recovery processes. risk affects social and economic development, and attempts to consolidate political and economic Methodology support for disaster risk reduction measures. The
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction ///The findings and recommendations of this (UNISDR) coordinates the production of the paper are based on detailed qualitative Global Assessment Report, in collaboration with a and quantitative analyses of recovery
wide range of stakeholders, including UN agencies, experiences around the world///. Sources include governments, academic and research institutions, the Regional Hyogo Framework for Action monitors donors, technical organizations, and experts in from Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America various fields of specialization. and the Caribbean, and Europe; country reports from Barbados, Indonesia, and Italy; input papers Scope and objectives from Australia, Central America, India, Indonesia, the Kyrgyz Republic, and Pakistan; knowledge
///This report documents progress and notes from Japan; nine field-based case studies challenges around the world associated with from Bangladesh, Haiti, Indonesia, Lao PDR, the integration of disaster risk reduction Mozambique, Pakistan, the Philippines, Senegal,
measures in recovery planning./// This report and the Republic of Yemen; and four additional specifically analyzes progress made by signatory analytical studies from Chile, China, Iran, and countries toward Core Indicator 5 under the HFA’s Turkey. Priority for Action 4, which states: “Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post-disaster These sources provided the following types recovery and rehabilitation processes.” of information: PART 01
• Hyogo Framework for Action self-assessment in recovery programs, and in strengthening reports submitted by approximately 100 recovery management practices in advance
countries, including data related to the of disasters./// While the quantitative data analysis integration of disaster risk reduction in recovery of the HFA monitor is revealing, it hides a wealth processes; of information about the innovations taking place on the ground. The technical inputs and qualitative • Various country recovery and thematic case analyses augment the HFA monitor by providing studies prepared during the development process examples from specific projects and interventions. of the Disaster Recovery Framework Guide2; These initiatives range from recovery policy • Technical papers contributed by a range of reforms in the Kyrgyz Republic to the Betterment stakeholders and partners associated with Fund in Queensland, which has allowed the local disaster recovery, including the Central government to compete for matching funds for American Coordination Center for Natural risk reduction measures such as retrofitting roads, Disasters Prevention, the Gujarat State Disaster bridges, and waterways. Management Authority, the International Recovery Platform, the Queensland Reconstruction Authority, UNDP, UNISDR, and the World Bank Group; and
• A GFDRR internal diagnostic of 20 post- disaster needs assessments, which took stock of recommended resilience-building measures and the impact of post-disaster needs assessments.
///This variety of sources provides a comprehensive look at the progress made in integrating disaster risk reduction measures
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 17 18 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Progress, challenges, and achievements toward resilient recovery
Country progress (2007-13) ///An analysis of progress made by signatory countries shows that changing laws and in integrating disaster risk policies is less challenging than changing
reduction in recovery development patterns///. This holds true for Core Indicator 4.5, which measures progress in integrating 3 ///UNISDR has determined that “the disaster risk reduction measures into post-disaster main progress made in living up to the recovery and rehabilitation processes. Some of the expectations of the [Hyogo Framework for lowest scores reported by governments between Action] in recent years has been qualitative, 2007 and 2013 are those associated with Priority grounded in policies, legislation, and for Action 4, which called for the reduction of underlying risk factors. This priority is among the planning that lay the foundation for more most operational of all the Hyogo Framework for quantitatively measurable achievements in Action indicators, focused on long-term disaster
the future.///” In other words, progress on disaster prevention and mitigation, and has seen the risk reduction goals has been greater in terms of lowest level of achievement compared to the other policy actions and planning rather than the actual priorities. Among the six indicators under Priority implementation of measures to reduce underlying for Action 4 (see Table 1), participating governments risk factors. The country self-assessment scores rated themselves the lowest for Core Indicator 4.3, reported in the Hyogo Framework for Action with a similarly low score for Core Indicator 4.5. Monitoring and Progress Review bolsters this
///By scoring themselves just over 3.0 on Core conclusion. In particular, progress in implementing Indicator 4.5, governments report that an reforms that change planning and management institutional commitment exists to integrating of human settlements or social and economic disaster risk reduction into disaster recovery investment activities has been far more difficult to measures—but that the achievements are
attain. neither comprehensive nor sustainable (5.0)///. SECTION 01
Figure 1 Average levels of achievement according to individual Hyogo Framework for Action Priorities, 2007-13
3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3
3.1 3.1 3.0 Achievement
Average Levels of of Levels Average 2.5
3.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.5 2.0 PA I PA II PA III PA IV PA V
Priority for Action
2007-2009 PA I: Ensure DRR is national priority w/ institutional basis 2009-2011 PA II: Identify, monitor, and assess risks, enhance early warning 2011-2013 PA III: Build resilience culture with knowledge / education Average PA IV: Reduce underlying risks PA V: Build preparedness for effective response Table 1 Priority for Action 4
PRIORITY FOR ACTION 4 Reduce the Underlying Risk Factors 3.3 Core indicator 4.1 Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of environment related policies and plans, 3.5 including for land use, natural resource management and adaptation to climate change. Core indicator 4.2 Social development policies and plans are being implemented to reduce the vulnerability of 3.2 populations most at risk. Core indicator 4.3 Economic and productive sectorial policies and plans have been implemented to reduce the 3 vulnerability of economic activities. Core indicator 4.4 Planning and management of human settlements incorporate disaster risk reduction elements, 3.1 including enforcement of building codes. Core indicator 4.5 Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post disaster recovery and rehabilitation 3.1 processes. Core indicator 4.6 Procedures are in place to assess the disaster risk impacts of major development projects, 3.9 especially infrastructure.
Table 2 Hyogo Framework for Action Indicator Score Definitions
SCORE DEFINITION 1 Minor progress with few signs of forward action in plans or policy. 2 Some progress but without systematic policy and/or institutional commitment. 3 Institutional commitment attained but achievements are neither comprehensive nor substantial. 4 Substantial achievement attained but with recognized limitations in capacities and resources. 5 Comprehensive achievement with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 19 20 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Relative to the other indicators under Priority for occur sporadically. However, even countries with Action 4, Core Indicator 4.5 experienced both low recent disasters reported low scores. Qualitative average scores as well as little growth year over evidence collected separately suggests that disaster year. Of the six Core Indicators, countries reported recovery efforts that are not based on strategic the highest level of progress for putting in place planning and implementation are more likely to fail procedures to assess the disaster risk of major in meaningfully incorporating disaster resilience in development projects, especially infrastructure. reconstruction, resulting in a missed opportunity.
The poor performance in integrating disaster risk A total of 168 countries agreed to the HFA, but not reduction into recovery processes indicates that all 168 countries reported to the HFA monitor, upon countries generally struggle to take advantage of which our analysis is based. From 2007 to 2013, recovery efforts to operationalize risk reduction. only 34 of the 168 countries that signed the Hyogo These results may partly be due to the difficulty Framework for Action provided self-assessments of measuring progress related to disaster recovery each period to UNISDR for the indicator measuring during a given reporting period, since disasters the integration of disaster risk reduction into
Figure 2 Average levels of achievement according to individual Hyogo Framework for Action Core Indicators under Priority for Action 4, 2007-13
4.0
3.5
3.3 3.3
3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 Achievement Average Level of of Level Average 2.5
3.2 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.9 2.0 CI I CI II CI III CI IV CI V CI VI
Core Indicator
2007-2009 CI I: Policies and plans for land use, natural resource management, and CC adaptation 2009-2011 CI II: Policies and plans for social development to address highly vulnerable populations 2011-2013 CI III: Policies and plans to reduce the vulnerability of economic and productive activities Average CI IV: Planning and management of human settlements, including enforcement of building codes CI V: Post disaster recovery and rehabilitation CI VI: Procedures to assess major development projects, especially infrastructure SECTION 01 Figure 3 Average CI 4.5 Assessment, 2007-2013
3.500
3.350
3.200 Achievement Average Level of of Level Average 3.050
3.000 3.212 3.088 3.406 3.051 3.394 2.900 2007-2009 2009-2011 2011-2013
All countries reporting Only countries reporting all 3 periods
the recovery process. This group, perhaps Challenges of integrating coincidentally, assesses its performance against this indicator relatively higher on average than disaster risk reduction into the countries that reported only once or twice. For these recovery process 34 countries, the average self-assessment scores
///Not surprisingly, countries identified provided for the three reporting periods were 3.21, financial limitations as a major impediment 3.40, and 3.39, respectively. to successfully integrating disaster
Of these 34 countries, five reduced their self- risk reduction into the recovery and
reconstruction process./// In fact, roughly a third assessment from the first to the third reporting of countries listed financing as the number one period, including Armenia, the Czech Republic, Peru, challenge when asked to provide additional insight Sweden, and Yemen; 14 reported no change; and 15 into their self-assessment under Core Indicator assessed their performance as improved. Only four 4.5. Respondents were allowed to describe as many countries and one territory rated their performance constraints as they felt appropriate. (See Figure 4.) a 5.0 in 2013, indicating a “Comprehensive achievement
with sustained commitment and capacities at all levels.” ///Financial constraints were closely followed These countries included Costa Rica, the Republic by expertise constraints, with about a of Korea, Hungary, Italy, and the Turks and Caicos quarter of reporting countries listing a Islands. Of these five countries, only Costa Rica lack of knowledge and human resources reported for all three periods. as a major impediment to achievement
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 21 22 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
levels in Core Indicator 4.5///. Since these two reconstruction. The strengthening of recovery factors account for the majority of self-reported systems can also alleviate expertise constraints, constraints by countries, it is clear that the as the need for experts to “reinvent the wheel” current model of donors pushing for and funding decreases with each reconstruction effort. In this initiatives to incorporate disaster risk reduction way, predictable funding shows great promise for into reconstruction efforts is ineffective and improving the integration of disaster risk reduction not sustainable. Anticipatory investments in in recovery processes. recovery and reconstruction are necessary in order
///The recovery experience following the to overcome financial and technical resource 2011 floods in Queensland, Australia, limitations, and ensure that disaster risk reduction illustrates the power of predictable and measures are sustainably mainstreamed in post- easily accessible financing for ensuring disaster recovery policies and plans. the incorporation of disaster risk reduction
/// ///A well-structured reconstruction process measures in the recovery process. While that is planned, sequenced, and prioritized a provision for betterment works had been in can help alleviate financial and expertise place under Australia’s national disaster recovery
constraints./// Countries can greatly benefit from funding arrangements since 2007, the process for an approach that comprehensively allocates applying for betterment, such as disaster-resilient financial and human resources across sectors improvements to roads and bridges, was often slow with an explicit aim for resilient recovery and and unwieldy. After three successive years of multi-
Constraint Reported by Countries to Integrating DRR in Recovery Figure 4 Constraints reported by countries under Core Indicator2009-2013 4.5, 2007-13
Financial constraints 2011 - 2013 22 19 5 7 15 7 Expertise constraints Land and population constraints More focus on relief than risk reduction 1 Policy/institutional constraints Resistance by population
2009 - 2011 22 15 2 18 5
1
2007 - 2009 15 11 2 11 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Number of countries reporting constraint SECTION 01 billion Australian dollar disaster events—including Box 1 Examples of disaster risk reduction-led recovery in major flooding in 2011 and 2012, and Tropical Queensland, Australia Cyclone Oswald in 2013—the Queensland and Australia’s AUD$80 million Queensland Betterment Fund provides financing for Australian governments launched the Queensland betterment projects to facilitate post-disaster reconstruction that incorporates Betterment Fund, a joint fund of AUD$80 million disaster risk reduction measures. Some 220 projects have been financed by to finance reconstruction of critical assets including the fund, including: bridges, service roads, and a pumping station.
• ///Gayndah Water Supply Intake Station project///. After experiencing nearly Announced in February 2013, the Betterment $4 million in damages due to disaster events, including tropical cyclone Fund applies global good practice in disaster Oswald in 2011, the pumping station was relocated and redesigned according to flood-resilient guidelines, allowing it to quickly return to reconstruction as it seeks to improve the resilience normal operations after extreme weather conditions. of Queensland communities to natural disasters.
Under the Fund, local governments are qualified • ///George Bell Crossing project///. Reconstruction of Queensland’s George to receive funding to rebuild so-called grassroots Bell Crossing following flooding in 2011 was completed one month prior to major floods in 2013, which washed away the crossing. Floodwaters also assets—such as water supply infrastructure, caused severe scouring and erosion to the eastern approach, resulting roads, bridges and drainage systems—that provide in the crossing’s complete demolition. The $1.7 million betterment project maximum benefit in terms of resilience and risk has rebuilt the crossing according to more disaster resilient standards; for reduction for a relatively minimal investment of example, by replacing the causeway with a pre-cast concrete bridge. This public funds. This approach embraces the rationale upfront investment will prevent future damage from washout, prevent that an upfront increase in investment costs will communities from isolation, and minimize financial losses from future disasters. provide significant future savings in terms of
rebuilding or replacement costs, and in preventing • ///Gayndah-Mundubbera Road project///. Gayndah-Mundubbera Road is consequent economic losses, in the event of the next an essential freight and transport link for the North Burnett region of major natural disaster. Queensland. The road was reconstructed following floods in 2011, but approximately two kilometers of the road was subsequently washed away by tropical cyclone Oswald in 2013, causing the road to be closed for three months. The $8.9 million betterment project is relocating the road and introducing new measures for road protection, ensuring resilience against future disasters.
• ///Round Hill Road project///. The Round Hill Road was severely damaged by the 2011 floods. The road was repaired at an estimated cost of $1 million, only for it to be damaged again in 2013, closing the town road for two weeks and forcing the community that depends on it to access essential supplies by air and sea. The $2.5 million betterment project will install flood-resilient measures to protect the road from future flooding.
• ///Upper Mount Bentley Road project///. Located on Palm Island, a remote aboriginal community, the road provides the only on-ground access to a vital radio telecommunications tower located at the peak of Mount Bentley. This road has been damaged eight times by weather events between January 2008 and January 2013, significantly reducing the ability of people to safely access the community’s only radio tower. The $800,000 betterment project included the construction of concrete surfacing for the steepest and most vulnerable sections of the road, allowing technicians to quickly access the tower and repair it following a disaster. 23 24 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Four stages of integrating disaster risk reduction into the recovery process
///Recent global experience suggests that most desirable long-term result of this integration integrating disaster risk reduction in the is for risk reduction to become a fundamental part recovery process often includes four of national recovery systems, in order to realize
progressive levels of achievement///: sustainable development gains that are resilient to future shocks. • The integration of disaster risk reduction considerations in post-disaster recovery needs This section of the report shares examples of assessments; post-disaster countries that have attempted to integrate disaster risk reduction into the recovery • A sustained commitment and continued focus on process, with varying levels of success. Examples are disaster risk reduction in recovery planning by classified according to four levels of achievement. the government, including developing recovery policies and strategies, as well as establishing institutional, financial, and operational Basic level of achievement: arrangements for the recovery process; Integration of disaster risk • The incorporation of disaster risk reduction reduction into recovery measures in the design and implementation of needs assessments recovery; and Contemporary post-disaster needs assessments • Translating resilient recovery gains into resilient led by national governments and facilitated by development gains. the international community increasingly include Many countries reported achievement in the detailed diagnostics of pre-existing disaster risk first two stages. The real test, however, lies in reduction institutional and policy frameworks in whether such planning culminates in the actual post-disaster countries. These needs assessments incorporation of risk reduction measures in the also increasingly articulate building back better design and implementation of recovery efforts. The factors and disaster risk reduction requirements SECTION 02
to strengthen resilience across all sector recovery schools, health facilities, houses, and transportation ///Photo Credit/// strategies. networks, were rebuilt to improve and reinforce Sudipto Das disaster-resilient standards. For example, an internal GFDRR analysis of 20 post- disaster needs assessment conducted in 16 countries between 2004 and 2011 found that roughly half of Moderate level of achievement: the analyzed needs assessments included central Sustained commitment and disaster risk reduction frameworks or guiding principles for recovery that promote the integration continued focus on including of risk reduction measures into the recovery process. These principles included addressing disaster disaster risk reduction risk reduction considerations within government measures in recovery planning institutions and the built environment, improving emergency preparedness and management, and Anecdotal evidence from various countries suggests integrating risk management into all sectors and that the recommendations made by post-disaster levels of governance. Almost all recent post-disaster needs assessments are usually implemented needs assessments provided recommendations for successfully only when supported by sustained and the integration of disaster risk reduction activities systematic recovery planning efforts or national into sector-specific recovery strategies. These recommendations included ensuring that damaged recovery frameworks that specifically operationalize social and physical infrastructure, particularly their disaster risk reduction-related provisions.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 25 26
Box 2 Defining “Building Back Better” Indonesia's experience following the 2010 earthquake and tsunami in Mentawai and the
///
“Recovery efforts should, at minimum, ensure that communities become safer eruption of Mount Merapi provides a good example. than they were before the disaster. We must bear in mind that each brick laid in the recovery process can either contribute to risk reduction or become an A damage and loss assessment conducted by/// BNPB (National Agency for Disaster Management) included recommendations to prioritize activities – William J. Clinton, Key Propositions for Building Back Better: Lessons Learned from and allocate resources for various sectors for Tsunami Recovery (2006) recovery. The government of Indonesia heeded the Natural disasters expose the underlying weaknesses and vulnerabilities in recommendations with disaster mitigation measures a community. Crumbled buildings might reveal a need for stronger building such as legislation (Housing and Residential Areas codes or relocation, while flooded roads may call for elevation or drainage. By Law, Disaster Mitigation in Coastal Areas and Small restoring damaged infrastructure to more disaster-resilient standards – that Islands), the relocation of affected populations from is, better able to adapt to and recover from natural hazards – communities disaster prone areas, and the conversion of affected will suffer fewer losses when the next disaster strikes. This concept is known as “building back better,” a term introduced during the 2004 Indian Ocean areas into conservation areas. Tsunami recovery efforts in Aceh, Indonesia. Similarly, following the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, Building back better is often defined as the reconstruction or retrofitting of an assessment conducted by the Asian Development public assets to meet safer standards – for example, incorporating disaster risk Bank and the World Bank Group emphasized the reduction measures into the reconstruction of hospitals, schools, and houses. inclusion of disaster risk reduction principles in However, the term can also encompass the governance and social sectors, a central reconstruction strategy for almost all promoting equitable and community-driven recovery through enhanced affected sectors including education, health care planning and preparedness, strengthened recovery institutions, greater facilities, water and sanitation infrastructure, and coordination among local governments and donors, and full participation of affected populations in the recovery process. private housing. The damage and needs assessment set forth guiding principles that were mutually Building back better is associated with an initial increase in reconstruction formulated by the government to ensure strategic costs. According to recent studies by the World Bank Group, building back consistency in recovery planning activities, which better generally costs about 10 to 50 percent more than simply replacing the included focus on livelihood regeneration and original structures. Yet in the long term, the benefits of building back better building back better, setting up institutional greatly outweigh the costs, in terms of both economic losses avoided and lives saved. A study of 5,500 disaster risk mitigation grants by the U.S. Federal frameworks, establishing efficient financing Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) – including earthquake, flood, and mechanisms for recovery, as well as governance, wind hazards – found a benefit-to-cost ratio of 4:1a. accountability, and supervision processes for the reconstruction program. Around the world, countries are building back better to reduce the costs of property damage, business interruption, emergency response, and societal ///Technical recommendations made during losses. For example, following the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, more than 90 post-disaster assessments easily fall to the percent of the 460,000 homes destroyed were reconstructed in compliance wayside when countries lack the technical with seismic-resistant standards. Significantly, homeowners led the buildingenabler for the next big disaster.”
capacity or expertise to follow their advice///. process, aided by training in seismic-resistant reconstruction and housing grants. During Cyclone Ian in January 2014, the largest cyclone ever recorded The concept of building back better has become the in Tonga, many recently built homes were severely damaged or destroyed, most frequently invoked term when talking about while homes constructed to climate-resilient standards in the 1980s withstood resilient reconstruction. It is noted as an objective the Category 5 winds. In the reconstruction process, all homes will be built of many international, national, and sub-national according to these cyclone resilient standards, with priority given to the reconstruction plans, and features prominently in speedy construction of homes for the most vulnerable members of the policy discussions on recovery. However, the goals community. of building back better are often difficult to achieve,
Note: a. Adam Rose et al, “Benefit-Cost Analysis of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants,” Natural Hazards Review (November 2007) SECTION 02 and the term is at risk of becoming an empty slogan back better meant, or what it implied in terms of for raising funds, rather than leading to meaningful funding. As a result, international agencies, donors, results related to disaster risk reduction. and government authorities operated largely through existing frameworks and programmatic For example, while building back better was a slogan interventions. In other words, the recovery process used widely during the post-2010 Haiti earthquake rarely included any kind of substantive change recovery process, the actual implementation of disaster risk reduction measures quickly fell apart, from previous processes. ODI argues that given particularly in relation to the construction and the multiple dimensions addressed by the building provision of shelter for the 1.3 million people who back better concept, including technical, political, lost their homes. Nevertheless, the creation of new and cultural matters, there is a risk that donors entities, such as the Unit for the Coordination of interpret its use in a recovery program according to Public Buildings and Housing (UCLBP), the Haiti their own priorities instead of those perceived by Reconstruction Fund (HRF), and the Cooperation governments. Such a scenario can often undermine for Foreign Development Aid (CAED), has long-term national disaster risk reduction goals. facilitated the government’s ability to address recovery and development needs, both on a sector ///This lack of clarity surrounding the building level and a national level. Improved governance back better concept has undermined systems in relation to disaster risk reduction disaster risk reduction measures during
and recovery processes have improved donor reconstruction in various countries./// An coordination, strengthened information sharing ongoing analysis by GFDRR and the Earthquake between government authorities and recovery Engineering Research Institute reveals that building and reconstruction actors, established better land back better as a simple policy admonition may have use and urban planning, and developed clearer lacked both specificity and coherence. Depending processes for resolving land title issues. However, on who is using the term, it has been viewed as on a national scale, the central government did not anything from an overarching principle for the systematically adopt most of the recommended recovery process, a housing strategy for improved build back better approaches to their recovery construction standards, a phrase that refers to the process.5 recovery process in general, or one that describes The concept of build back better is further the recovery “end state.” This confusion makes complicated by confusion around or it impossible to determine whether disaster risk oversimplification of its meaning. While building reduction measures have been implemented back better may be commonly understood as a post- across disparate reconstruction efforts and are disaster opportunity to improve physical, social, and contributing to building back better. The report economic conditions through the reconstruction concludes that the ambiguous use of the term has and recovery process, the term has been defined introduced new and unwanted complications to the many ways. An Overseas Development Institute reconstruction process. (ODI) report found that without a disciplined and strategic focus, the humanitarian community and country governments reduce the idea of building back better to building standards and the technical design of shelters. Additionally, there was little common agreement on what building
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 27 28
Box 3 Resilient Recovery in Action: Integrating disaster risk Substantial level of reduction measures into the 2011 Typhoon Haima recovery achievement: Incorporation process in Lao PDR of disaster risk reduction In 2011, tropical storms Haima and Nok Ten hit central Lao PDR within two measures in the design months of each other and with devastating effects. Haima caused widespread flooding in five provinces, including its capital city of Vientiane, affecting and implementation of approximately 73,000 people and causing an estimated US$174 million in recovery programs damages. The government of Lao PDR mounted a significant response and
recovery operation with support from the international community. The Many historical and contemporary examples response included investments in disaster risk mitigation measures during demonstrate how post-disaster countries variously the reconstruction process, particularly in the infrastructure sector (e.g. roads, incorporated building back better and disaster irrigation, public buildings and assets). The storms prompted a comprehensive risk reduction considerations into the design review by the government and the World Bank Group of existing building codes and implementation of recovery programs. This and technical standards for the design, construction, and maintenance of particular agenda received a boost in the aftermath public buildings and infrastructure. of the 2004 Asian Tsunami, which caused colossal damage and loss of human life. Most affected
///Rehabilitating roads to withstand the effects of future natural hazards/// countries introduced a strong emphasis on disaster
Lao PDR’s network of roads was in critical need of flood proofing and an risk reduction in the design of their recovery
ongoing maintenance action plan. The widespread damage to road surface, interventions. By the time a devastating earthquake
drainage, culverts, and river bank protection roads following 2011’s tropical hit Pakistan in 2005, this increased focus on resilient
storms provided an opportunity for the government and the World Bank recovery had gathered momentum, and both the
Group to tackle this longstanding problem. The major challenges of similar people and government of Pakistan, as well as
rehabilitation in the past included both a lack of funds and the necessary the international community were ready to take
planning and implementation to make it happen, in addition to donor and drastic action and make significant investments by
government financing restrictions on the scope of recovery projects. incorporating disaster risk reduction considerations in the recovery process. In recognition of these issues, the World Bank Group in 2012 provided financing
for disaster resilient upgrades to sections of the national road network through ///Pakistan, operating through a robust
the Lao Road Sector Project, including slope stabilization to reduce the reconstruction framework and an
likelihood of landslides and flood-proof surface treatments. The project has empowered central agency, the Earthquake
also helped to increase the government’s emergency road contingency fund Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority
and developed standard operating procedures for the fund’s use. A separate (ERRA), was able to substantially implement
World Bank Group initiative is helping to improve the government’s ability to disaster risk reduction objectives in its
///. The audit the maintenance of the roads. 2005 earthquake recovery process organization’s flagship initiative, a rural housing Lao PDR’s response to Typhoon Haima in 2011 demonstrates how international reconstruction program, prioritized building back coordination strengthened resilient recovery by enhancing investments in better recommendations—in this case, rebuilding disaster risk mitigation and inter-agency contingency plans. The government of homes according to seismic-proof standards—as Lao PDR used the devastation of Typhoon Haima as an opportunity to address a central feature. The program’s owner-driven technical and financial resource gaps, and the perennial flooding of critical approach proved highly successful, with over 90 road networks. By improving technical standards, financing mechanisms, and percent of reconstructed houses compliant with the road drainage and slope stabilization, Lao PDR’s recovery and reconstruction new standards. helped to increase the disaster resilience of government institution and roads. SECTION 02
ERRA’s successful leadership of this effort Desirable level of achievement: ///Photo Credit/// demonstrated the need for disaster-prone Pakistan Arnold Jumpay to institutionalize a central agency to lead post- Translating a resilient recovery disaster reconstruction efforts. As a result, the into gains for resilient National Disaster Management Authority was formed in 2007. The deputy chairman of ERRA was development brought over to lead the new agency and hopes were Contrary to the above Pakistan example, there high. Unfortunately, the gains made and lessons is no dearth of instances where gains made from learned following the 2005 earthquake recovery resilient recovery were transferred into longer- could not be fully translated into an institutional term risk reduction and resilient development and policy framework for recovery due to nebulous initiatives. For example, the post-disaster and conflicting mandates, legislative confusion, needs assessment prepared by the government and an ineffective effort to transfer institutional of the Philippines after Typhoons Ondoy and knowledge to government ministries. With the reconstruction mandate divided across ministries, Pepeng hit the country in 2009 recommended no central agency was able to form and pursue the establishment of a contingency financing an implementable recovery framework to lead mechanism to manage the increasing fiscal burden reconstruction following the 2010 nationwide floods arising from recurring disasters. This led to the in the country. The Pakistan example illustrates how development of a risk financing strategy, with the strengthening of resilient recovery processes in analytical support from the World Bank Group government can be derailed. and GFDRR, and to the country gaining access to
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 29 30 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
a World Bank Group contingent loan facility, the standards, and the relocation of public buildings Catastrophe Deferred Drawdown Option. The and low-income communities to safer zones. Philippines accessed this financing for the first
///The 2001 Gujarat earthquake recovery and time following Typhoon Washi in late 2012. reconstruction program is a good example
///Financial predictability has proven to be a of how to establish a virtuous cycle between key factor for successfully incorporating risk the integration of disaster risk reduction measures and the strengthening of recovery reduction into recovery activities///. Established
in the late 1990s as a mechanism to support systems ///. With widespread damages affecting both public and private sector assets—including the rapid rehabilitation of federal and state homes, irrigation infrastructure, schools, health infrastructure, Mexico’s Fund for Natural Disasters facilities, and telecommunication and electricity (FONDEN) helped to ensure that adequate infrastructure—the government and international financial resources were immediately available in donors decided to rebuild using improved multi- the aftermath of a natural disaster to finance the hazard resistant standards. Within weeks of the reconstruction of public infrastructure and low post-disaster response, the Gujarat State Disaster income housing. By creating two complementary Management Authority was established to provide budget accounts, the FONDEN Program for institutional oversight and coordinate a large-scale Reconstruction and the FOPREDEN Program for and multi-faceted recovery program. A primary Prevention, FONDEN streamlined recovery and function of the new authority was to ensure reconstruction processes without compromising that recovery programs included risk reduction existing budgetary plans and approved public components that strengthened long-term programs. This anticipatory budgetary tool has disaster preparedness. To do this, the authority evolved into an essential element of Mexico’s spearheaded numerous disaster risk reduction disaster risk management strategy, and has helped initiatives that contributed to reforming policy to finance disaster risk reduction activities through and legal frameworks, modifying building codes the reconstruction of infrastructure at higher and construction regulations, training engineers
Table 3 Recent policies codifying resilience in development in Indonesia
MINISTRY/AGENCY POLICY SCOPE National Agency for 1. General guidelines for Post-Disaster Rehabilitation and 1. Adoption of community empowerment approach Disaster Management Reconstruction Program 2. Mainstreaming resilience into village development (BNPB) 2. General guidelines for Disaster Resilient Village construction and planning 3. Guidelines for the implementation of the Safe School 3. Codifying earthquake-resilient standards for school from Disaster initiative rehabilitation 4. Technical guidelines for Post-Disaster Settlement 4. Adoption of community-driven housing reconstruction in Rehabilitation and Reconstruction post-disaster recovery process
Ministry of Finance Decree on Budgeting Mechanism for Disaster Management Inclusion of community-driven reconstruction of housing Ministry of Public Works Codification of REKOMPAK process into standard operating Set of guidelines on the implementation of REKOMPAK procedures and guidelines Ministry of Education and Guidelines for implementation of Special Funding Inclusion of earthquake-resistant standards and school- Culture Allocation for Education managed construction in the school rehabilitation process SECTION 02 and masons on better building praactices, and Box 4 Lessons from the Great East Japan Earthquake revising the syllabi of engineering colleges to Both the successes and challenges associated with Japan’s national disaster include lessons on seismic-proofing buildings risk management system are reflected in the lessons drawn from the Great and infrastructure. East Japan Earthquake in 2011. The Great East Japan Earthquake catalyzed a variety of impacts that included an earthquake, tsunami, a nuclear power plant As a result of the authority’s success, the accident, power supply failure, and a large-scale disruption of supply chains. government of India advised all of its state Faced with these complex challenges, Japan chose to prepare for future governments to establish similar organizational disasters by investing in preventative structural and nonstructural measures structures for disaster management. At the during the reconstruction and recovery process. These measures included national level, the government established the strengthening buildings and infrastructure for future disasters; enhancing disaster risk education and risk-related finance and insurance; improving National Disaster Management Authority, and disaster risk management regulation, legislation, and enforcement; and successful initiatives from the Gujarat experience strengthening cooperation between government agencies and ministries, the formed the foundation for several national private sector, and local, national, and international actors. policies. In particular, Gujarat’s comprehensive legislation on disaster management led to the Japan possesses a strong culture of knowledge and learning from past disasters, demonstratedy by the resilience of its financial management system formation of similar legislation at the federal and after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Through the institutionalization of state level. business continuity practices, financial institutions continued to operate in a stable manner immediately after the earthquake. Ensuring the stability of
///Similarly, Indonesia’s 2004 post-tsunami financial services provides a basic lifeline in a post-disaster society. Effective Community-based Settlement Rehabilitation cooperation between disaster-resilient private sector players helps ensure and Reconstruction Project, also known as a resilient and sustainable civil society, and reduces national and regional REKOMPAK, grew from a housing project economic damages. into a larger government reconstruction program, and gradually into development
practice///. Following the 2004 Aceh tsunami, the government of Indonesia enacted the REKOMPAK, employing a community-driven reconstruction approach so that affected communities could undertake construction work themselves, manage project financing, lead project planning, and execute reconstruction with assistance from government agencies and technical specialists.
The implementation of community-driven resilient investment is gradually mainstreamed into other sectors, as well. The Ministry of Education and Culture has since 2012 adopted a school-managed construction approach in its national school rehabilitation program, where school committees are empowered to undertake necessary resilient measures including identifying disaster vulnerabilities in the school areas, preparedness and structural retrofitting 31 32 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
for earthquake resistance, and regular safety before disaster hits, business continuity exercises. Furthermore, the approaches developed management supports the formation of under REKOMPAK have continuously evolved in contingency arrangements and the delegation of Indonesia since the 2004 tsunami. Mechanisms essential management responsibilities required and processes of building resilient communities to ensure agencies have the capacity to continue and settlements have been codified by the Ministry delivering core services. Its central function, of Public Works as guidelines and standard business continuity planning, is an organized operating procedures. To scale up the resilient series of activities and procedures that have been village beyond PNPM and urban areas, the used to guide post-disaster response, recovery, and National Agency for Disaster Management (BNPB) reconstruction processes. launched a Resilient Village program in 2010 (See
Table 3 for more recent policies in Indonesia.). ///Following the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, business continuity
///In Mexico, the government is helping small arrangements were an essential component businesses to prepare for disasters through to the financial sector’s resilient recovery///. a process called business continuity The Japanese banking and insurance systems management, ensuring that their services had already already strengthened longstanding
are available to support recovery./// Business disaster recovery and management systems, which continuity management is an “organized series ensured that payments and insurance settlements of risk reduction and risk mitigation measures remained constant. As a result, these financial designed to optimize the speed, the quality, and systems’ organizational and institutional resilience the coordination of organizations’ recovery in a helped stabilize local communities and had a post-disaster situation.”6 Begun as a private sector significant and positive effect on recovery efforts. concept, business continuity management is Overall, Japan’s pre-disaster planning, including increasingly seen as a complementary component the identification of priority infrastructure, the to disaster risk management and critical to legislation of post-disaster funding sources and maintaining the continuity of private and public financial arrangements, and other examples of sector core operations. recovery planning enabled prompt emergency In particular, business continuity practices response operations and facilitated a quick and demonstrate the benefits of recovery readiness. resilient rehabilitation in the aftermath of the Often institutionalized as planning procedure Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami.7 Policy challenges & successful practices for building post- disaster resilience
///In recent years, post-disaster recovery possibly diminish disaster risk reduction-related response has been increasingly plagued outcomes. These can include political instability by significant time gaps between or political crisis; a lack of coordination across planning and implementation, a lack of national and subnational tiers of government; continuous attention by international and the lack of an enabling policy environment; the national partners, and declining resource inherent shortcomings of existing institutions
commitments./// Often, recovery momentum and governance structures; fiscal and budgetary tends to slow following post-disaster assessments, constraints including donor fatigue in financing making it hard to plan and implement later stages recovery; lack of donor coordination; competing of disaster response. This can impede the pace, developmental priorities; and competing or and even the viability of a recovery program, diverging donor priorities. resulting in suboptimal to very little recovery in
///While opportunities for mainstreaming extreme cases. Even with numerous international longer-term resilience are perhaps the ripest agencies engaged in capacity building and training, in the aftermath of a disaster, countries nations still face serious limitations in terms of have not always been able to capitalize planning and implementing recovery processes.
fully on these opportunities./// A particularly However, countries and international development important precondition for recovery to guide and stakeholders that have undergone large scale lead to sustainable development is for the recovery recovery efforts have knowledge and experiences process itself to be effective. Thus, in cases where that can help governments bridge this gap through post-disaster recovery did not work or was not the creation of user-friendly knowledge products implemented, the chances of it being able to and tools. promote resilience in longer-term development Many other factors determine the outcomes and efforts are bleak. However, even where recovery impact of the post-disaster recovery process. For works, transitional arrangements between the example, while a post-disaster needs assessment reconstruction and development phases must may help provide a solid strategic and financing be instituted to ensure that policy mandates, platform for shaping and realizing post-disaster strategic gains, and strengthened capacities recovery, an assortment of factors can influence and resulting from the recovery process translates
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 33 34 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
into (a) the mainstreaming of risk reduction in disaster resilience. This helped countries realize regular development legislation, policies, and the potential of resilient recovery as a means to plans; and (b) the strengthening of government sustainable development. As shown in Figure 5, the disaster management systems based on recovery act of building resilience is operationalized through experiences. two different means of development:
Historical evidence suggests that the following For example, after the 2005 earthquake, Pakistan factors lead to either little or short-lived translation coordinated resilient recovery around a central of the principles and gains of resilient recovery disaster risk management framework and into resilient development and growth: (a) a lack strengthened national sustainability by integrating of formalized policy and strategic linkages across disaster risk reduction measures into various sector recovery and regular development processes; (b) development policies, including the development insufficient or ineffective institutional coordination of building codes for enhancing seismic safety. and transition arrangements between recovery Similarly, after Cyclone Sidr hit Bangladesh in 2008, and reconstruction agencies, as well as successor the country utilized the disaster as an opportunity and regular development institutions; and (c) an to promote resilient development by investing inadequate systemization of lessons learned from heavily in structural mitigation interventions, the recovery experiences into future recovery strategies, strengthening of early warning systems, systematic standards, and performance management tools. risk assessments, and other risk reduction and preparedness programs. More recent examples Successful practices for building from Haiti, Indonesia, Lao PDR, and the Philippines post-disaster resilience also illustrate how far-reaching policy dialogues and developmental impact, in terms of structural,
///The growing incidence of both recurring and financial, and community resilience, can be high-impact disasters in recent years has achieved by making informed and systematic use of made countries place greater emphasis on opportunities created by large-scale disasters. recovery processes that lead to longer-term
///The U.S. National Disaster Recovery disaster resilience///. For example, countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region are leading Framework promotes the incorporation the way in achieving financial resilience through of sustainability practices into recovery
contingent risk financing and transfer mechanisms. processes, as well./// The framework calls for the Countries in less developed regions, such as restoration, redevelopment, and revitalization of the countries hit by the 2004 Asian Tsunami and others health, social, economic, natural and environmental in the Asia Pacific and South Asia that have faced a fabric of the community following a disaster to recent spate of serious disasters, have been pursuing rebuild a more resilient nation. One of its nine core a more strategic risk reduction agenda across the principles includes resilience and sustainability. recovery and development spectrums. Formally launched by U.S. President Barack In these countries, initial post-disaster needs Obama in 2009, signaling the highest possible assessments led by national governments level of political ownership, the National Disaster and international development partners have Recovery Framework defines how federal agencies provided an important platform and financial should operate to promote effective recovery and impetus for building immediate and longer-term to support communities affected by a disaster. SECTION 03
Building Resilience Figure 5 Building Resilience
PRE-DISASTER POST-DISASTER
PROMOTING WELL COORDINATED RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT RECOVERY
Assessment of DRM and Diagnostics of Development Coherent Recovery Strong Institutional Emergency Preparedness Policies & Programs Central Vision Plan / Framework Arrangements
ADAPTATION IMPLEMENTATION ALLOCATION
Ensure “build back better” is inline Ensure resources are equally or at with country context in order to least very proportionately enhance reconstruction standards, distributed to lives & livelihoods as institutions and planning to that to public sector assets
POLICY DIALOGUE
Resilient Recovery Sustainable Development
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 35 36
Box 5 Recovery-led disaster risk reduction in Mozambique It is directed at a broad set of stakeholders, including local government executives, private Droughts, floods, cyclones, and earthquakes regularly hit Mozambique, sector and nongovernmental organization leaders, making it one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world. Following massive flooding in 2007, the government took advantage of the recovery emergency managers, community development process momentum to incorporate disaster risk reduction measures as part professionals, and disaster recovery practitioners. of its Master Plan for Disaster Prevention and Mitigation. Recovery, resilience, Both pre- and post-disaster responsibilities for and development efforts led to an improvement in overall resilience. Farmers management, coordination, communications, were introduced to drought-resistant crops, small-scale rainwater catchment implementation, and recovery support are defined systems using local materials were constructed, and riverbanks were for government, the private sector, NGOs, and other reforested. In subsequent years, the number of people affected by heavy rains decreased considerably, until major floods in 2012 and 2013 revealed the need community organizations. The framework allows for additional disaster risk reduction initiatives. for local governments and communities to call on institutional staff and technical resources from Subsequently, the government assigned the National Institute for Disaster across the federal government to support specific Management to coordinate the resettlement of internally displaced people recovery functions depending on the nature of the living along the banks of the Zambezi River, in the absence of a housing ministry. An estimated 8,000 families benefitted from government and disaster and the capability of local authorities. international support in the construction of houses, schools, and clinics
on higher ground using more resilient materials. At the same time, the ///Recognizing that disasters rarely respect government recognized the importance to livelihoods of structures closer to national boundaries, cross-boundary and the river. regional organizations for cooperation on disaster risk reduction can be used as a Furthermore, 776 community-level committees have since been trained to platform to galvanize national efforts among use a flood alert system for evacuating vulnerable populations. Meanwhile, disaster preparedness and prevention have become institutionalized under member nations to institutionalize recovery the leadership of the National Institute for Disaster Management. Aside from and promote the principles of disaster
the resettlement program, responsibility for disaster recovery blends into risk reduction in the recovery process///. The development plans under other government institutions. Nonetheless, the contrasting examples of South Asia and Central government of Mozambique has built a solid foundation for integrating disaster America highlight the potential of regional recovery readiness into longer-term risk reduction and prevention measures. partnerships. In South Asia, a region of high risk exposure and growing disaster vulnerability, “no headway [has been] made in attempting a trans- boundary disaster recovery framework either by developing a framework or developing institutional mechanisms.”9 Despite a growing tendency in the region to include disaster resilience measures among the aims of national post-disaster reconstruction efforts, countries have often failed to successfully institutionalize good reconstruction practices that facilitate risk reduction measures in post- disaster reconstruction. SECTION 03
///In contrast, Central America exemplifies and security. National loss databases were also how regional agreements on disaster developed or in the process of being developed in management can serve as a mechanism all six countries, which is helping governments and for introducing framework-led recovery into other stakeholders to more effectively adapt and
national strategies///. The case of the Central focus recovery planning. American Coordination Center for Natural Disasters Prevention (CEPREDENAC), is particularly Recovery in the Hyogo instructive. Framework for Action and Following the impact of Tropical Depression 12E, international dialogues on which left 90 people dead, 800,000 affected, and risk reduction caused over $1 billion damages, CEPREDENAC,
in partnership with AusAID, UNISDR, and the ///While governments around the world have International Recovery Platform, successfully made notable progress in some disaster risk created a new regional disaster risk reduction reduction priority areas under the Hyogo plan in addition to proposals for national recovery Framework for Action, progress on the frameworks in all six focus countries: Costa Rica, resilient recovery indicator since 2007 has El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and been minimal, as evidenced by country self-
Panama. assessments///. While a general explanation might be that most recovery programs do not provide These efforts have resulted in the creation of a an enabling environment for sizeable disaster risk national-level Committee for Rehabilitation and reduction, it is also recognized by international Reconstruction and risk management fund in El practitioners and agencies, including UNISDR, that Salvador, and the definition of institutional roles the Hyogo framework gave insufficient attention and responsibilities for sector led recovery strategies and priority to recovery. for infrastructure, health, water and sanitation, housing, food security, education, livelihood,
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 37 38 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
With only a single indicator related to recovery, the subjective follow-up explanations provided by the framework is not an effective tool for properly countries. Instead, there should be a requirement to articulating the necessary actions under this priority independently validate self-assessments, or to check area, nor does it provide enough instruction for them against other sources of similar information. tangibly measuring progress made by countries
///International agencies should work with in integrating disaster risk reduction measures in governments to develop actionable and their recovery processes. The post-2015 framework measurable indicators to monitor the for disaster risk reduction must make resilient progress of implementation and the recovery a major priority for action. Going forward, achievement of recovery goals related to recovery must be viewed as part of an integrated both specific recovery programs and to continuum, inseparable from preparedness,
anticipatory recovery planning frameworks///. response, mitigation, and development, with an Indicators could include the provision of sufficient acknowledgement the critical role it can play financial reserves and predictable financing in moving countries toward a state of greater mechanisms for managing and responding to resilience. disasters; the institutionalization of post-disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks across ///The language of the resilient recovery indicator can be considerably improved upon regions and all levels of government; standardized in the post-2015 framework for disaster risk approaches to post-disaster assessments and recovery planning; and the strengthening of reduction///. This is partly because the indicator is mechanisms for cooperation between governments, based on a set of questions that are in some cases civil society, the private sector, and international irrelevant to resilient recovery—for example, a agencies and reconstruction actors. question as to whether “measures [are] taken to address gender based issues in recovery”10. While this question is important for ensuring social equity and equality within a recovery response, it does not help to determine whether disaster risk reduction measures have been integrated in reconstruction processes or if disaster recovery is enhancing social, economic or physical resilience. Furthermore, resilient recovery lacks a confirmed definition and a corresponding set of results indicators. Phrases such as “build back better” do little to clarify the concept, and even the term “resilience” lacks specificity.
Given the importance of integrating disaster risk reduction in the recovery process, it is urgent that indicators be developed that are operational and actionable, allowing disaster risk managers, policy makers, and politicians to understand the specific outcomes they should be aiming for. The Hyogo framework’s scoring methodology has a quantitative ranking scale that, for the most part, does not match
40 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Conclusion: Furthering Resilient Recovery
This report, Resilient Recovery: An Imperative for strengthening country systems for resilient Sustainable Development, documents the challenges recovery. Next, it expands upon GFDRR’s approach and progress around the world in integrating for strengthening recovery systems, building disaster risk reduction measures into post-disaster the capacity of governments to develop policies, recovery and rehabilitation, based upon the frameworks, and enabling mechanisms for efficient priorities outlined by the Hyogo Framework for and effective recovery and reconstruction. Finally, Action (2005-2015), and recommends policies and the chapter concludes with a four-step results practices for achieving resilient development gains framework that can help countries plan and monitor through the recovery process. their progress on improving and strengthening their recovery systems. This final section examines the next steps for These commitments, tools, and frameworks for furthering resilient recovery, from knowledge resilient recovery represent the way forward for exchange and political will to concrete steps that sustainable development and mainstreaming countries can adopt to strengthen their capacity disaster risk reduction. for recovery.
The chapter begins by examining recent global knowledge exchanges towards building political consensus and leveraging policy actions for Building Political Will Through ///The conference featured the launch of several knowledge products, jointly produced Knowledge Exchange by the European Union, UNDP, GFDRR and
the World Bank Group./// These documents further For many years, planning for recovery was often resilient recovery by outlining proven strategies and delayed until it was too late. Through stronger guidelines to help countries recover more efficiently dialogue and knowledge exchange, countries can and effectively after a disaster, and include: learn from recovery experiences around the world,
• ///Disaster Recovery Framework Guide:/// A tool and take action so that future generations—and to assist governments in planning, prioritizing, hard-fought development gains—are less vulnerable financing, and implementation recovery to the next disaster. The GFDRR-hosted World programs to ensure resilience in recovery Reconstruction Conference, UNISDR regional and development. platforms, and the Third UN World Conference on
• ///Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Guide:/// Disaster Risk Reduction demonstrated the growing The European Union, United Nations, and World political will for resilient recovery. Bank Group standard for the government-led exercise to quantify disaster induced economic Second World damages and losses, and identify need associated Reconstruction Conference with disaster recovery.
• ///Case studies on disaster recovery in nine
///In September 2014, the Global Facility for
countries:/// The Disaster Recovery Framework Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) Guide draws from detailed case studies of hosted the second World Reconstruction Bangladesh, Haiti, Lao PDR, Mozambique,
Conference///, in partnership with the European Pakistan, the Indonesia, Yemen, and Senegal. Union and UNDP. The three-day conference at the
World Bank in Washington, DC, drew more than 500 ///While countries and communities participants from over 60 countries. Participants follow unique paths to recovery, several commonalities emerged from the conference represented government agencies, multilateral
and case studies///. First, ex-ante recovery organizations, and leading private sector and civil planning—that is, putting in place policies, society groups. standards, and institutional arrangements for During 26 plenary and technical sessions, managing recovery before a disaster strikes—can participants shared challenges and good practices, help ensure a more efficient and effective recovery process. (See later section, “Strengthening Recovery and deliberated on the next steps to advance Systems,” for more details.) Second, post-disaster the resilient recovery agenda in the post-2015 recovery must be linked to poverty alleviation and framework for disaster risk reduction, and beyond. long-term development objectives, with improved The sessions explored a range of topics, including: service delivery and livelihood generation for how the political economy shapes development vulnerable groups. Third, recovery should be well- and recovery goals; the challenges of bridging coordinated and inclusive, with established roles and humanitarian and development efforts; recovery in milestones for actors at all levels of government, the conflict and fragile situations; strategies for efficient private sector, and civil society. Finally, building the and effective reconstruction; and accelerating capacity to conduct post-disaster needs assessments housing recovery. will provide information on baseline conditions,
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 41 42
Box 6 Conference Statement and help to identify recovery priorities that lead to sustainable development. The conference statement proposed five actions for strengthening resilient
recovery in the post-2015 framework for disaster risk reduction, based on ///In the closing session of the second World deliberations throughout the course of the conference: Reconstruction Conference, 37 governments, parliamentarians, international agencies, • Promote and ensure efficient, inclusive, and effective recovery and NGOs, and civil society organizations issued reconstruction interventions and measures through the institutionalization a statement in support of strengthening of post-disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks resilient recovery and reconstruction in across regions and all levels of government. This would enhance risk the post-2015 framework for disaster risk governance, strengthen coordination, and empower communities and
reduction and beyond./// marginalized groups. The statement emphasized the importance of • Provision for sufficient financial reserves and resources within government recovery as an opportunity for introducing measures to manage and respond to disasters triggered by natural hazards, and formalized strategic and resource commitments toward equitable recovery that not only restore lives, homes, and livelihoods, planning, implementation, and performance management; promoting but build them back better. Furthermore, “recovery more dependable and predictable international financial mechanisms for must be viewed as part of a continuum, inseparable financing recovery. from preparedness, response, mitigation, and sustainable development.” • Strengthening mechanisms for cooperation with services in areas of recovery and reconstruction that include standardized approaches for post- To be successful, recovery and reconstruction disaster needs assessments and recovery planning frameworks, and other programs require commitment at the highest levels support services such as sharing of information, databases and rosters of government. In issuing this joint statement, of experts, best practices, capacity building, tools, bilateral, regional and the conference marked a milestone in building multilateral support to countries, and progress monitoring. consensus on the role of resilient recovery for sustainable development and poverty reduction. • Strengthening readiness and capacity for recovery planning, implementation, and monitoring across regions and all levels of
“Disasters will continue to strike, and in their wake government, and establishing clear roles and responsibilities for all actors we have the chance to move in a new direction in a recovery setting. toward resilient recovery and reconstruction. The aftermath of a disaster is a critical and delicate • Consider further consultations in the development of a “Draft Voluntary Commitment in Support of Recovery and Reconstruction in the Post-2015 moment where the right policies and decisions can Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction” (Annex I) at Second Preparatory turn adversity into opportunity.” Committee Meeting and the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk__-Dr. Jim Yong Kim, World Bank Group Reduction to be held in Sendai, Japan, in March 2015. President, at the second World Reconstruction
Supporting participants included Australia, Asia Dalit Rights Forum, Conference in Washington, DC (September 10,
Bangladesh, Chile, Centro de Coordinación para la Prevención de los Desastres 2014)__ Naturales en América Central (CEPREDENAC), Costa Rica, El Salvador, Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (World Bank Group), Global Network for Disaster Reduction, Grameen Development Society, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, InterAction, International Recovery Platform, Japan, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Malawi, Mexico, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nepal, Nepal National Dalit Social Welfare Organization, Nicaragua, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Panama, Philippines, Senegal, Tajikistan, Uganda, Yemen, and United Nations Development Programme. SECTION 04
Growing global consensus during the recovery phase to develop capacities that reduce disaster risk in the long term, including on resilient recovery as the through the sharing of expertise, knowledge, and way forward lessons learned.”
Over 2013-14, as the Hyogo Framework for Action ///The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), introduced at the 2005 World Conference approached its conclusion, the United Nations on Disaster Risk Reduction in Hyogo, Japan, Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) was a 10-year plan that outlined necessary began facilitating consultations with countries and organizations around the world to determine a new steps for reducing disaster losses./// The 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, which had occurred way forward. In particular, at UNISDR regional only weeks prior, served as a call to arms for the platforms for disaster risk reduction in Ecuador, international community. Nigeria, and Thailand, countries called for greater emphasis on resilient recovery. With reference to recovery, the HFA advocated that governments address disaster risks “in sector For example, more than 30 governments and 35 development planning and programmes, as well organizations contributed to a June 2014 input as in post-disaster situations.” The document paper about the Asia-Pacific region, which is highly recommended that countries “incorporate disaster prone to natural hazards. Contributors called for risk reduction measures into post-disaster recovery a shift in focus from reducing vulnerability to and rehabilitation processes and use opportunities building the overall resilience of communities and the economy. In particular, the paper states that the
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 43 44
Box 7 Recovery Provides Impetus for Strengthening Disaster prevailing ad hoc and project-centered approach to Preparedness in Yemen recovery must be replaced by an institutionalized, multisector approach, guided by a resilience A tropical storm hit Yemen in October 2008, turning the governorates of framework with prioritized actions that contribute Hadramout and Al-Mahara into declared disaster areas. Flooding and heavy to sustainable development. rain destroyed 2,826 houses and huts, and partially damaged an additional 3,679 houses. Some 25,000 people were displaced as a result, seeking Similarly, the participants of the Fourth Session of temporary shelter in mosques and schools or with host families. The impact the Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction on agricultural land and people’s livelihoods was particularly devastating, and in the Americas in May 2014 endorsed the need to damages to physical assets were estimated at US$874.8 million. better “define the roles, responsibilities, resources, After the disaster hit, the government of Yemen—with support from and inter-institutional coordination for recovery,” GFDRR—carried out probabilistic risk assessments as part of the recovery and it encouraged countries to “develop anticipatory process. The risk assessments provided the necessary information to design planning processes surrounding recovery, including comprehensive risk management strategies at the national, provincial, and institutional budgets that ensure the avoidance of local levels, enabling long-term disaster risk reduction planning and mitigation reconstructing risk and generating new risks.”11 This measures. This catastrophic risk modeling allows public decision makers, like the government of Yemen, and private decision makers, such as insurance was further emphasized at the 5th African Regional companies, with the ability to estimate in advance the impact of a particular Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in May 2014, kind of disaster on national accounts and operations, as well as expected where participants from 44 countries and partners post-disaster resource and liquidity gaps. Risk modeling strengthens pre- and called for the gains from recovery to be translated post-disaster recovery planning, such as emergency response planning, cost into resilience through the development of financial benefit analyses of risk mitigation investments, planning for fiscal impact protection strategies and resilient recovery plans. on the government budget, and decisions on insurance, including insurance portfolio risk analyses and whether to pool risks. ///The Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in March 2015 presents an opportunity to mainstream resilient recovery in the global thinking and policy discourse on
disaster risk reduction./// This could build upon the specific actions on which consensus was reached at the regional platforms and preparatory committee sessions, as well as the second World Reconstruction Conference (refer to WRC Outcome Statement).
At the conference, GFDRR and UNISDR will jointly organize a ministerial roundtable with the title of “Reconstructing after Disaster: Build Back Better.” Forty ministers and senior officials from the World Bank Group, United Nations, and civil society will deliberate on voluntary commitments for recovery to be included in the post-2015 framework. The roundtable represents the rising political demand for resilient recovery and building back better, and the willingness of governments to join together towards strengthening their disaster recovery systems. SECTION 04
Recommendations from recent gathering and cataloging past country experiences, existing legal provisions, and contemporary global forums on recovery international practices. These efforts will allow governments to respond to disasters predictably and The second World Reconstruction Conference appropriately, in accordance with international good and UNISDR regional platforms produced practices, depending upon the type, scale, or impact several recommended policy actions for national of a disaster. governments, international development partners, and development cooperation forums that deliberate National and international policy standards must on disaster-related policy. These recommendations, incorporate resilience-building and risk reduction based on global consensus, are intended to measures, while considering affordability, technical institutionalize the integration of disaster risk viability, and the local context. Other considerations reduction measures in recovery programs through include the maximization of local public and private the establishment of formal policies, institutional goods and services, social inclusion and equity, arrangements, and recovery frameworks. and the importance of equally distributing aid across affected communities. The availability of ///First, stakeholders must develop national and policy standards prior to a disaster will improve the international policy standards for planning efficiency and applicability of post-disaster needs and implementing recovery strategies./// assessments and their recommendations, as well. Governments can develop national policy standards for guiding the post-disaster recovery process by
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 45 46 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
///Second, governments and partners must civil society organizations, and local stakeholders for formalize commitments to recovery planning help in creating a recovery framework.
and implementation./// Today, there is a national To deliver upon commitments, countries also and international tendency to making commitments require greater financial resilience and capacity for to disaster recovery that begin and end with responding to the budget shock of natural disasters. post-disaster needs assessments. It is critical that Countries should develop disaster risk financing commitments include other facets of recovery strategies, including adequate budget reserves and planning and implementation, as well. In particular, risk transfer solutions, that take into account the the implementation stage requires sustained entirety of the recovery process. international support to maintain momentum
throughout the recovery process. ///Third, countries must develop national recovery frameworks to ensure the The development of a recovery strategy must take integration of disaster risk reduction place immediately after the completion of—or
measures./// A well-coordinated recovery process, even during—a post-disaster needs assessment, guided by a national recovery framework, is more but seldom does. Governments must establish likely to be inclusive and resilient, and development formal policy commitments to fully implementing gains made during the process have a better chance
///Photo Credit/// a recovery process, as well as formal strategies for of being sustainable in the long term. To successfully Jason Dixson engaging with international development agencies, implement risk reduction in a post-disaster setting, countries must establish the required policies, plans, platforms to ensure that disaster risk reduction and partnerships in an anticipatory manner. measures are integrated into funding provided by international aid programs; and create emergency Such planning frameworks should include recommendations and resource requirements for cash transfer systems for affected households, the following four areas: as well as grants that incentivize disaster risk reduction measures at local government and
• ///Institutional Frameworks for Recovery./// It is individual levels. necessary to agree on an institutional framework that lays out the roles and responsibilities of • ///Recovery Management and Monitoring./// various tiers of government for establishing and A recovery framework should establish quality implementing standards for resilient recovery. In control and enforcement mechanisms for the addition, a legal framework for recovery should implementation of disaster risk reduction be developed that establishes legally mandated measures in accordance with planning and design institutions and good governance mechanisms for recovery. Such frameworks can also provide standards. It should also build the capacities of formal coordination and resource sharing national, subnational, and local governments mechanism across public, private, and civil to design and implement resilient recovery society organizations. interventions that are based on the build back better model. Finally, a recovery framework • ///Recovery Policy and Planning./// The policy framework for recovery must lay out standards should develop monitoring and evaluation and parameters for recovery planning and systems, including tangible indicators for the implementation. These should include improved integration of disaster risk reduction measures construction standards for the rebuilding process into the recovery process. for various types of public and private assets and
infrastructure. Additionally, it should develop ///Fourth, stakeholders should document, policy guidelines for including disaster risk develop, and share knowledge on disaster
reduction measures in needs assessments and recovery./// Countries must document their recovery plans; identify data sources required for experiences in disaster recovery and share recovery planning and ensure their availability; lessons with other countries affected by disasters. and designate "rebuild" and "no-rebuild" zones, International development agencies should based on risk considerations. showcase these country good practices and translate
• ///Recovery Financing./// A recovery framework them into knowledge products and tools for resilient must ensure that disaster risk reduction recovery. These actions will ground the resilient measures receive priority in terms of funding reconstruction agenda in concrete experiences and during the recovery process. The framework must help to move it forward. Furthermore, the post- require the tracking of recovery funds, especially 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction should those related to disaster risk reduction spending; encourage and reward the institutionalization of provide for central government subsidies and incentives for the incorporation of disaster risk recovery, and better define and measure outcomes reduction into the recovery process; create multi- for resilient recovery and build back better donor funding arrangements or coordination processes.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 47 48 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A Proposed Approach integrating disaster risk reduction into recovery planning, they often encounter difficulties in for Strengthening implementation.
Recovery Systems ///In response to these challenges, GFDRR has developed a program to ensure that Political commitments, as illustrated by the governments have the capacity to recover World Reconstruction Conference and UNISDR
from disasters before they strike./// This regional platforms, are essential for implanting program has five service areas that will help to the resilient recovery agenda in global public develop and institutionalize disaster recovery sector developmental programing. Yet to further frameworks in national or subnational – ranging resilient recovery, national governments must from strengthening data readiness to managing have the capacity to deliver on their commitments, recovery performance. and develop policies, frameworks, and enabling mechanisms that balance the speed and quality of recovery and reconstruction efforts. Additionally, Improving national and recovery programs require predictable technical and local capacities for recovery financial resources for planning, implementation, assessment and planning and performance management. According to the 2007-2013 HFA Monitor, while many countries An important first step is the collection, or have demonstrated institutional commitment to expansion, of baseline data for infrastructure and services before a disaster. For example, a country Box 8 Institutionalizing the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment might collect data regarding the number of hospitals System in the Kyrgyz Republic and universities in a city, kilometers of roads, hectares of farmland, kilometers of pipelines, Until recently, despite its frequent encounters with natural disasters and kilometers of power lines, or number and operating emergency situations, the Kyrgyz Republic did not possess any officially institutionalized procedures for assessing disaster losses and recovery needs. capacity of power plants. This data must then be Consequently, post-disaster recovery planning was not based on systematic stored in a central repository, where it can quickly needs assessments, and failed to incorporate longer-term disaster risk and easily be accessed and communicated. In both reduction measures. developed and developing countries, disaster-related data can be fragmented, unreliable, or held by a With financial and technical support from the World Bank Group, the Kyrgyz variety of sources, which hinders its usefulness Republic sought to strengthen its disaster recovery system through the and availability. institutionalization of context-specific post-disaster needs assessment methodologies and recovery frameworks. Working with the National Platform In addition to collecting baseline data, a country for Disaster Risk Reduction, relevant line ministries, and local governments, the must review and improve its national damage government created a national action plan that identified necessary actions for assessment guidelines, and systematically improving the country’s needs assessment structure and methodology, as well incorporate the use of post-disaster needs as recovery planning standards and provisions. Training workshops, guidance assessments in the recovery process. A post-disaster manuals, and similar capacity development measures were conducted to build expertise in conducting needs assessments, and the process was incorporated needs assessment is a government-led exercise into the country’s disaster response system. This institutionalization of a key that brings together government authorities, aspect of recovery planning created an avenue for incorporating disaster risk international donors, and other stakeholders to reduction measures into reconstruction policies. Training for needs assessment coordinate recovery efforts. The assessment collects staff prioritized the principles of building back better towards investing in comprehensive information on economic damages future resilience initiatives. and losses, and identifies recovery priorities.
To improve the efficiency and accuracy of post- disaster needs assessments, it is essential to develop the capacity of government staff, private sector companies, and civil society to conduct assessments and formulate recovery plans, and to formally delineate the roles and responsibilities of all actors engaged in the assessment. Stakeholders may also consider developing rapid assessment methodologies to expedite post-disaster assessments, to allow greater time for planning a recovery strategy, or expanding national and regional training programs that simulate actual field conditions.
Strengthening central policy frameworks and sector strategies for recovery
Governments must also develop national or subnational policy standards to guide the recovery 49 50 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
process, as well as sector level recovery strategies. Strengthening financial Policy standards improve the predictability and systems for recovery consistency of recovery strategies for disasters of various types, scales, and impacts. The early In the aftermath of a disaster, it can be difficult to development of an overall vision for recovery at the quickly allocate resources to the sectors that need it highest levels of government creates momentum for most. Countries must ensure financial predictability the post-disaster recovery process. and transparency when integrating risk reduction into the recovery process. For example, countries At the national and subnational levels, resilient can use risk assessments to aid in budgetary recovery should be integrated into all development planning and establishing financial risk-sharing policies and planning, including in strategies to mechanisms that can be deployed in the event of reduce poverty or adapt to climate change. At the a disaster. sector level, these policies might include building codes, with regulations and incentives to encourage International financial institutions can contribute compliance. In the development of any policy, both technically and financially toward the creation governments must strengthen coordination across of contingency funding mechanisms in less- developed countries, and advanced risk transfer recovery, risk reduction, and regular development mechanisms in more developed or transition processes, and take into account gender, economies. This will require cooperation on the equity, environmental protection, and climate international level between donors and aid agencies change adaptation. to ensure that government budgeting of recovery factors in the availability of such contingency Strengthening institutional financing mechanisms. frameworks for recovery Performance management In addition to policies, countries must strengthen their overall institutional frameworks for recovery. systems for recovery Following a disaster, it is important to assess Finally, to monitor the success of the recovery existing government capacity for conducting post- process, a country should adapt international disaster recovery, and to appoint a lead agency performance management tools to their national for reconstruction. For example, a country could and local recovery contexts. Examples of these tools establish a dedicated institution for coordination include risk and accountability frameworks, rapid and policy guidance on resilient recovery. procurement systems, monitoring and evaluation systems, and grievance redress systems. The capacity to manage contracts and procurements is critical, especially where third party contractors With actionable and measurable indicators, are the primary implementers of reconstruction. countries can monitor the progress of Developing mechanisms to improve collaboration implementation and achievement of disaster risk between public, private, and civil society reduction-related recovery goals. organizations might also help to ensure more inclusive and well-coordinated recovery, in which all actors are aware of their responsibilities and objectives during the recovery process. 51 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 51 52 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
GFDRR’s Program for Strengthening Recovery Systems Implementation Approach The proposed program aims at strengthening the capacity of governments to recover from disasters.
Develop a broad strategic approach As a first step, a broad strategic approach and technical assistance options for strengthening recovery systems has been developed by GFDRR’s Resilient Recovery Team. This will be in the form of a training manual on how to implement the institu- tionalization of recovery in national and local government systems.
On-demand technical assistance The next step would be to provide on-demand technical assistance to interested countries that request support for improving their disaster recovery systems. Such assistance will be based on the findings of diagnostics of existing country recovery sys- tems and will be tailored to the specific demand placed by an interested client government. The major expected outcome will be the (ex-ante) development and institutionalization of disaster recovery frameworks in national or subnational government systems.
Description of Services The following menu of services shall be available under the program to Bank teams and clients to choose from:
Service Area 1: Improving National Service Area 2: Strengthening Service Area 3: Strengthening and Local Capacity for Recovery Needs of Central Policy Frameworks and Institutional Frameworks for Recovery: Assessment and Planning: Sector Strategies for Recovery: This could entail: This could include: This could include: a. country diagnostics for improving institutional a. improvement of pre disaster infrastructure and a. development of national or subnational visions frameworks for recovery; service delivery baselines for various sectors; and policy standards for recovery; b. support for strengthening institutional b. development of central repositories for hosting b. development of sector level recovery coordination and oversight mechanisms and communicating baseline data; strategies; and, for recovery; and, c. review and improvement of national damage c. strengthening policy and institutional coordina- c. developing public-private-civil society assessment guidelines including damage tion across recovery, risk reduction and regular collaboration mechanisms for recovery. classification systems: and, development processes. d. development of institutional mechanisms for conducting post disaster needs assessments and recovery planning.
Service Area 4: Strengthening Service Area 5: Performance Financial Systems for Recovery: Management Systems for Recovery: This could include: This would entail adapting international perfor- mance management tools to specific national and a. country diagnostics for improving cross and local recovery contexts, such as: risk and account- intra sector prioritization of recovery needs ability frameworks, rapid procurement systems, and corresponding resource allocation monitoring and evaluation systems, grievance (budgetary) processes, and; redress systems, etc. b. support for simplified public financial manage- ment systems for recovery. Results Framework for Resilient Recovery
GFDRR has developed a four-stage results framework to help countries benchmark and monitor their progress and performanceResults on strengthening Framework their disaster recoveryfor the systems, Proposed illustrated below. Indicator “Ensure that post-disaster responses effectively contribute to risk reduction”
I Prepare for recovery in advance by institutionalizing recovery functions in national and local governance systems
a. Prepare for recovery in b. Ensure financial predict- c. Promote the use of d. Strengthen coordina- advance by institu- ability for integrating post-disaster needs as- tion between recovery tionalizing recovery risk reduction into the sessments and recovery actors to avoid gaps functions in national recovery process frameworks to guide and increase focus on and local governance recovery processes recovery interventions systems that reduce risk
II Ensure financial predictability for integrating risk reduction into the recovery process
a. Strengthen capacity for b. Establish clear roles and c. Standardize approaches d. Implement, reform, and recovery planning and responsibilities for all for post-disaster as- improve institutional, monitoring at all levels actors in a recovery set- sessments and recovery legislative, and financial (national, sub-national, ting, including national planning frameworks. arrangements for and local. and make and local governments, recovery in advance vof capacity building the private sector, aca- disasters. activities more open demia, and civil society and available to all. organizations.
III Promote the use of post-disaster needs assessments and recovery frameworks to guide recovery processes
a. Ensure financial b. Develop financing c. Use compre- d. Establish agree- e. Adopt budget predictability for strategies that hensive risk ments and mech- management integrating risk identify fiscal and assessments to anisms to ensure and post-disaster reduction into the financial mecha- aid in budget- coordination of budget execution recovery process. nisms to deploy ary planning donor recovery mechanisms in the event of a processes and financing with before natural disaster. establishment government disasters occur. of contingency recovery plans. financing mecha- nisms in the case of a disaster.
IV Strengthen coordination between recovery actors to avoid gaps and increase focus on recovery interventions that reduce risk
a. Strengthen coordina- b. Ensure that governance c. Use the recovery plan- d. Develop actionable and tion between recovery models for recovery ning process to align all measurable indicators actors to avoid gaps establish roles and actors with the govern- to monitor the progress and increase focus on responsibilities for all ment’s risk reduction of implementation and recovery interventions actors, including mech- agenda. achievement of disaster that reduce risk. anisms to hold risk reduction-related all stakeholders recovery goals. accountable.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 53 54 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 1
REKOMPAK Updates: 2 year review of Rebuilding Indonesia’s Communities After Disasters
///Iwan Gunawan et al., The World Bank Group///
Indonesia’s Community-based Settlement of their own homes was a new idea and seemed to Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Project, also carry much greater risk than the usual approach of known by its Indonesian acronym, REKOMPAK, has contracting experienced construction firms. proven communities affected by disaster are able to actively participate in the restoration of homes and REKOMPAK’s approach combines the application livelihoods. For example, following the devastating of owner-driven reconstruction—in which local 2004 tsunami in Aceh that killed more than 200,000 construction workers are hired to rebuild, for people and completely wiped out a number of example—and community-driven reconstruction, settlements, more than 15,000 homes were built where organized groups of people from the affected and repaired by the affected community themselves. community participate in project planning and Participants not only applied earthquake-resistant execution with the help of government agencies, standards to the new buildings but were careful to specially-hired facilitators, and engineers who consider future risks when deciding where to rebuild. provide the necessary technical assistance.
The term Kompak in Bahasa Indonesia means This combined approach is often referred to as “unified” or “one voice.” REKOMPAK’s approach to “collective owner-driven reconstruction,” with housing reconstruction places the responsibility for the community also overseeing and carrying rebuilding and fund management directly into the out small infrastructure rehabilitation projects, hands of the people and communities affected by settlement planning, and disaster risk reduction disaster. In the beginning of its application, following measures in addition to housing construction. the Indian Ocean Tsunami, there were doubts about This kind of approach not only led to a faster the approach since never before had government physical, social, and economic recovery for disaster- and donors entrusted such a large amount of money affected communities, but also introduced disaster in the hands of affected populations. Putting the risk reduction practices into the village-level beneficiaries in charge of the construction project development process.
Table 4 REKOMPAK in figures
NO DESCRIPTION ACEH 2004* YOGYAKARTA 2006 MERAPI 2010* 1 Village Assisted 126 310 106 2 Number of Beneficiaries 79,000 543,161 257,665 7,964 houses reconstructed, 15,199 houses 2,489 housing units* 6,999 houses reconstructed, 4,652 unit in 19 new settlements rehabilitated,185 road of infrastructures including infrastructure reconstructed 3 Physical Output segments, 171 irrigation road including roads, drainage, segments, 2057 units of irrigation, and clean water Water and Sanitation facility Table 5 Recent Policies Codifying Resilience in Development
NO MINISTRY/AGENCY POLICY SCOPE 1 National Agency for Disaster • Decree of BNPB Head No. 17/2010 on General • Adoption of community empowerment approach Management (BNPB) Guidelines for Post Disaster Rehabilitation and • Mainstreaming resilience into village development Reconstruction Program • Codifying earthquake resilient standard for school • Decree of BNPB Head No 1/2012 on General Guidelines rehabilitation for Disaster Resilient Village • Adoption of community-driven housing reconstruction in • Decree of BNPB Head No. 4/2012 on Guidelines for the post disaster Implementation of Initiative of Safe School from Disaster • Decree of BNBP Head No. 4/2013 on Technical Guidelines for Post Disaster Settlement Rehabilitation and Reconstruction 2 Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance Decree No. 105/2013 on Budgeting Inclusion of community-driven reconstruction for housing Mechanism for Disaster Management 3 Ministry of Public Works Set of Guidelines on the Implementation of REKOMPAK Codification of REKOMPAK process as standard operating procedures and guidelines Ministry of Education Decree No. 61/2012 on Guidelines Inclusion of earthquake resistant standard and school- 4 Ministry of Education and Culture of the Implementation of Special Funding Allocation for managed construction for school rehabilitation Education
REKOMPAK Achievements From Reconstruction Project to
Since its beginnings during the reconstruction efforts Development Policy and Practice in Aceh following the 2004 tsunami, REKOMPAK Today, REKOMPAK’s disaster risk reduction has evolved from a housing reconstruction project approach is being integrated into the village into a government program and finally, today, a development process in Indonesia, and is being development practice. REKOMPAK is based on carried out by the government with support from the the government of Indonesia’s National Program Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery for Community Empowerment, which sets out (GFDRR). A pilot program, called the National the mechanisms, standards, and procedures for Program for Community Empowerment in Urban community-driven village development. REKOMPAK Areas, is being applied in 1,189 urban wards and codified and adapted some of the mechanisms and villages considered high risk. The Ministry of Public procedures to support both the reconstruction of Works has codified REKOMPAK mechanisms and privately owned housing units as well as public processes for building resilient communities and buildings and infrastructure. REKOMPAK’s settlements into guidelines and standard operating approached was later applied in the reconstruction of settlements following the 2006 Yogyakarta and procedures. In 2010, Indonesia’s National Agency for Central Java earthquake, and to a limited extent after Disaster Management launched its Resilient Village the 2009 West Sumatra earthquake. More recently Program to scale up efforts beyond the pilot project it was used after the 2010 Merapi volcanic eruption communities. (see Table 4). The implementation of community-driven resilient investment is gradually being mainstreamed into other sectors as well (see Table 5).
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 55 56 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 2
Learning from Disasters: A case study of risk-sensitive disaster recovery and rehabilitation in Gujarat
///Pramod K. Mishra, Former Director General, Gujarat Institute of Disaster Management///
Overview of the Gujarat In order to bring about effective coordination and implementation of the recovery program—which Earthquake and required the involvement of several departments Recovery Process and agencies—a new organization, the Gujarat State Disaster Management Authority (GSDMA), was set This paper analyzes how a risk–sensitive disaster up within two weeks of the earthquake. It performed recovery and rehabilitation program, implemented well and garnered acclaim both nationally and in the aftermath of the Gujarat earthquake of 2001, internationally. could lead not only to the sustainable rehabilitation of lives, livelihoods, and infrastructure, but also laid the foundation for the successful implementation of Gujarat Recovery Achievements the Hyogo Framework for Action in the Indian state A number of initiatives contributed to the overall of Gujarat. In fact, in spite of some gaps, the Gujarat success and sustainability of Gujarat’s recovery from Earthquake Recovery Programme is one of the most disaster while laying the groundwork for further risk successful examples of how disaster risk reduction reduction and disaster management measures: measures are and can be integrated into the post- disaster recovery and rehabilitation process. • A damage and need assessment, conducted jointly with multilateral organizations, provided The January 26, 2001, earthquake caused enormous for the recovery project’s design. The report damage to life and property in Gujarat, which had covered sectors such as housing, health, a population of over 60 million at the time. Over education, irrigation, water supply, municipal a million homes were damaged or destroyed and it caused widespread damage to economic and infrastructure, power, transport infrastructure, social infrastructure. The Gujarat government telecommunication, industry, agriculture, and the organized large-scale rescue and relief operations service sector. Hundreds of thousands of houses with the assistance of the federal government, civil were inspected and assessed. society, governments of other countries, and UN • Various schemes relating to housing, livelihoods, organizations. social rehabilitation, infrastructure, and Even though reconstruction needs were massive and disaster risk reduction were prepared, including urgent, from the very beginning there was a serious assistance for housing construction, commercial focus on disaster risk reduction, including the loans, and tax exemptions for establishing longer-term aspects of mitigation and preparedness. industries in the affected areas. • The necessary funds were raised in a systematic number of national-level initiatives. These include way from the federal government, multilateral the adoption of new policy and legal frameworks, organizations, donor countries, industry, and the modification of building bylaws and regulations NGOs; significantly, there was no overlap in controlling development, the training of engineers terms of how and where the funding was used. and masons, the inclusion of seismic-proofing measures and disaster management courses • A system of checks and balances—including an external audit and periodic reports to the in school curriculums, and the introduction of Gujarat government and funding agencies—and licensing for engineers and insurance providers. a commitment to delegating power ensured Gujarat was the first state in India to enact a that recovery schemes were transparent and comprehensive legislation on disaster management, effective. For example, damage assessment teams and the so-called Gujarat Act was adopted as a for private buildings included an engineer, a model for similar legislation by other Indian states. revenue department official, and a local school The 2003 Gujarat Act was also the starting point or member of an NGO. Village councils were regularly consulted about recovery policy for a similar federal act. Then, in the aftermath decisions, in addition to committees consisting of of the Asian Tsunami of 2004 and the Kashmir representatives from the government, academia, earthquake of 2005, some of the affected countries private sector, and NGOs. attempted to model their recovery programs on the approach and framework of the Gujarat Earthquake • Hundreds of thousands of banks accounts Recovery Programme. were opened within a short time, expediting cash assistance to the affected populations; A Willingness to Try New additionally, a professional accounting system was put in place that included a daily internal Methods and a Commitment to audit. Long-Term Recovery • The Polytechnic M.S. University, Vadodara and While the GSDMA drew on the support and the Gujarat Institute of Development Research, experience of the UN system, other international Ahmedabad conducted social impact assessment organizations, and earlier reconstruction programs studies to provide real-time feedback from in both India and other countries, the GSDMA had affected people about the recovery process, and the willingness to accept ideas from others, adapt measures were taken based on that feedback. those ideas to the local situation, and approach • An international consultancy firm performed recovery activities in new and innovative ways. a monitoring study on the delivery of benefits, The Gujarat government was also committed to especially to poorest and most vulnerable. supporting the long-term measures necessary
The Gujarat recovery experience has, overall, been to achieve sustainable recovery, which prepares one of the most influential recovery programmes communities for the next disaster while recovering on both a national and global level. In recent years, from the most recent one. The GSDMA’s adoption the disaster risk reduction initiatives taken and of the owner-driven approach to housing successfully implemented through the Gujarat reconstruction is an example of this openness, Earthquake Recovery Programme have led to a vision, and commitment.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 57 58 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 3
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning in Central America: Concepts, Advances, and the Way Forward
///CEPREDENAC, IRP, UNDP, and UNISDR///
Overview of Risk and Recovery cooperate on a new project in coordination with the International Recovery Platform (IRP), with support Planning in Central America from the Central American Coordination Center for Natural Disasters Prevention (CEPREDENAC, Central America is classified as a region highly for its Spanish acronym) and UNDP at the regional vulnerable to disasters, due to a geography that is level. At the national level, under the leadership of exposed to multiple natural hazards, as well as rapid UNISDR and in coordination with CEPREDENAC, population growth and poorly planned development. IRP, and UNDP, six countries have developed or are As a result, the region is regularly hit by disasters, in the process of developing proposals for national which have set back hard won development gains. recovery frameworks. Over the past five years, awareness about disaster risk has improved, with leaders now considering Regional and disaster risk reduction a regional priority and taking steps to fully integrate it into development efforts National Achievements and budget planning. As a result of this initiative, CEPREDENAC Worldwide there has been limited investment in developed a new regional disaster risk reduction capacity building for recovery, with most disaster plan, as well as proposals for national recovery planning focusing on contingency planning and frameworks in all six focus countries: Costa Rica, emergency response. As a result, poor management El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, of the recovery process has led to extended and Panama. National loss databases were also developed, or are in the process of being developed, humanitarian interventions and an exacerbation in all six countries. Initial results indicate that, in of the environmental, economic, and social effects terms of loss and damages, the Central American of disasters. This is particularly true in regions like region is most affected by extensive risk due to Central America that are prone to several risks. hydrometeorological hazards. Such information Following Tropical Depression 12E in October is helping governments and other stakeholders to 2011, which left 90 people dead, 800,000 affected, more effectively adapt and focus recovery planning. and caused over $1 billion damages in El Salvador, Recent advances related to the management of pre- Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, the Australian disaster recovery planning include: government made a commitment to support recovery efforts in Central America. As part of • El Salvador, based on recovery experiences this commitment, AusAID and UNISDR agreed to from Hurricane Ida and Tropical Depression SECTION 05
12, has created a national-level Committee for The Way Forward for Pre- Rehabilitation and Reconstruction and a risk management fund. Disaster Recovery Planning
• Guatemala has created the Commission for If countries are to effectively recover from disasters, Recovery within the National Commission it is critical that they invest in pre-disaster recovery for Disasters Risk Reduction (CONRED, by preparedness initiatives, especially those that build its Spanish acronym) and defined roles and more resilient societies during the development responsibilities in eight sectors: infrastructure, process. Such recovery preparedness may include health, water and sanitation, housing, food the enforcement of recovery planning and security, education, livelihood, and security itself. implementation at all levels of government and society—including regional cooperation—and • In Panama, a document of national recovery across all sectors. Countries must also consider the framework has been prepared within the complexity of social, economic, institutional, and Risk Management National Platform. The environmental vulnerability factors and involve a Ministry of Presidency has been proposed wide range of public and private stakeholders. as the entity responsible for the overall coordination of recovery processes, and the roles and responsibilities of public institutions, municipalities, civil society, and the private sector have been defined.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 59 60 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 4
Building It Back Better to Reduce Risks after Multiple Disaster Events
///Graeme Newton, Former CEO, Queensland Reconstruction Authority (Queensland, Australia)///
Overview of the Queensland The Queensland Reconstruction Authority is currently managing an AUD$14 billion disaster Betterment Approach reconstruction program following consecutive years of major flood and cyclone events that have The “betterment” approach to reconstruction is affected much of this large Australian state. In an predicated on the potential for long-term cost Australian first, the Queensland Betterment Fund savings. Evidence has shown that an increase in was announced in February 2013 following Tropical infrastructure investment before natural disaster Cyclone Oswald, a disaster that caused AUD$2.4 strikes will provide significant future savings in billion in damage to many public assets that had terms of rebuilding or replacement costs, and been repeatedly damaged and restored following consequent economic losses. For example, a study earlier disasters in 2011 and 2012. of 5,500 mitigation grants approved by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency Queensland Betterment between 1993 and 2003 reports an overall benefit- Fund Achievements cost ratio of 4:1. Betterment has been applied in a number of international natural disaster events in A joint agreement between the Queensland and the last decade, including the devastating Indian central Australian governments established the Ocean Tsunami in 2004, the Kashmir earthquake in AUD$80 million fund, with money specifically Pakistan, Hurricane Katrina in the United States in earmarked for making public assets more disaster 2005, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, and the resilient. Specifically, local government assets would receive funding, with a special focus on Haiti earthquake in 2010. “grassroots” assets like roads, bridges, and water The Queensland Betterment Fund is an initiative supply infrastructure that would provide maximum born out of successive years of natural disasters benefit in terms of resilience and risk reduction for a that have damaged infrastructure and devastated relatively minimal investment of public funds. communities around the state. By investing a little Eligible local government authorities were more into building resilience in the immediate asked to identify key local infrastructure that aftermath of disaster, longer-term risks can be had been repeatedly damaged in disaster mitigated, future reconstruction costs can be events that would benefit from a more resilient reduced, and the harmful impact of future natural reconstruction solution. In all, 48 local governments disasters on the health, safety, and well-being of applied for approximately $1 billion worth of people and society can be lessened. betterment projects. Table 6 Queensland Betterment Fund Achievements
ASSET TYPE/TREATMENT AMOUNT Bridge upgrade or repair 21 Flow and drainage 113 New bridge 7 Other 6 Pedestrian bridges 2 Recreational reserve 2 Road realignment 3 Road resurfacing 61 Water treatment or sewerage 5 Total 220
As of January 31, 2014, the government has approved The Link Between Recovery 220 betterment projects, with work underway across the state. These projects, which include and Mitigation improvements to water supply infrastructure, roads, The betterment provision provides the link between bridges, and drainage systems, have an estimated immediate recovery needs and the mitigation of total cost of approximately AUD$150 million, which future disasters. With recovery costs of natural includes AUD$80 million in betterment funding disasters in Australia and around the world and local government contributions of more than escalating, a commonsense and effective means of reducing the impact of these events is to increase AUD$11 million. The infrastructure is often vital to investment in more robust infrastructure that can both lives and livelihoods. withstand repeated impacts from natural disasters. For example, one current project will supply new Such investment has the potential to reduce the equipment for a water intake station, and cover the financial and social costs of disaster recovery, in addition to minimizing the amount of time that cost of relocating it to a more flood-proof location. critical assets and infrastructure are unusable. The Gayndah Water Supply Intake Station on This provides a strong incentive for governments Queensland’s Burnett River provides the town of at all levels to adopt betterment as a standard Gayndah with its only supply of water, in addition recovery and reconstruction concept following a to surrounding industries, including dairy farms. natural disaster. The government rebuilt the station for the cost of With construction of AUD$150 million worth of AUD$1.22 million after it was severely damaged by betterment projects underway around Queensland, flooding in 2011. The station was severely damaged the future benefits of this innovative approach will again in 2013 by Tropical Cyclone Oswald. By be revealed in time. Queensland, with its history of investing in a more resilient water station—at the natural disasters and the near certainty of future cost of AUD$3.8 million, of which $1.2 million is paid disasters, is in a unique position to showcase the for by the Queensland Betterment Fund—Gayndah’s practical and successful application of betterment water supply will be more likely to survive future in the reduction of risk from future and multiple severe weather events. natural disaster events.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 61 62 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 5
The Private Sector Approach of Business Continuity Management Helps Demonstrate the Benefits of Institutionalization
///Alessandro Caillat, The World Bank Treasury, Associate Member of the Business Continuity
Institute (AMBCI)///
Adapting the Business 2. ///Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability
Analysis:/// The pre-planning process begins Continuity Approach to Pre- with the identification of hazards facing the Disaster Planning community, as well as the risks they pose to life and properties. The assessment includes Business continuity planning helps an organization hazards such as extreme weather events, floods, to prepare for worst case scenarios. These pre- earthquakes, wild fires, and storm surges, and defined contingency plans are activated in the event notes their likelihood of occurring, as well as of a disruption, and instruct an organization how to where they are most likely to hit. The next step is recover its organizational functions and continue to develop an analytical model, or risk atlas, that offering its services, despite an environment that cross-references building stock with population data. After the data model is developed, recovery may be chaotic. planners can develop what-if scenarios for The private sector’s approach to managing business selected hazards and quantify the estimated continuity, with its phased approach, should be losses based on hazard intensity. used as a model by governments and organizations
3. ///Recovery Strategies:/// Recovery planners when developing disaster recovery frameworks. should use these models to develop strategies to By following this approach, pre-disaster planning reduce and mitigate the identified vulnerabilities can be an inclusive and participatory process that within defined budget priorities. These “building maximizes community involvement in decision- back better” strategies help to break the cycle of making, and ensures that the community’s interests disaster mismanagement by preventing future will be prioritized during the reconstruction process. and repeated damage and reconstructions. The necessary phases include:
4. ///Recovery and Reconstruction Plan:/// The
1. ///Awareness and Participation:/// Planning adoption of pre-event disaster recovery plans and for disaster recovery requires that emergency organizational models is essential to accelerating responders, private businesses and industries, the recovery process. local and central governments, and residents 5. ///Plan Exercise and Review:/// Pre-disaster work together to build a shared vision for recovery planning should include a program the community, identify new and existing for periodic plan review and revision to approaches, and maximize long-term benefits for allow the community to assess progress in the community. its implementation. framework and several city-level frameworks were Examples of Successful published, based on the national framework, offering Continuity Plans decentralized pre-disaster recovery planning processes. The frameworks define pre-disaster In the United States, a recovery planning pilot strategies and goals, short-term recovery objectives, project in the state of Florida has become a and roles and responsibilities for leaders after a success story that can be implemented in other major natural disaster. countries and regions around the world. In 2007, Florida adopted legislation that required all coastal jurisdictions to prepare post-disaster redevelopment Lessons Learned plans. Between 2007 and 2010, Florida implemented The ultimate goal of post-disaster reconstruction is a pilot program across five counties and a to achieve resilience and sustainability. In a disaster- municipality to develop guidelines and identify related context, resilience refers to the community’s best practices for recovery planning. In 2010, the ability to recover from future natural disasters state government published a guidebook that with minimum loss of life, property, and impact describes lessons learned from the pilot projects and on society and the economy. When establishing recommends planning processes. The guidebook a pre-disaster planning framework, countries includes lessons learned from previous disasters, should learn from the private sector’s business how that research was applied in the drafting of a continuity planning, and follow a phased approach long-term post-disaster redevelopment planning including awareness building, risk analysis, recovery process, and the results of testing that planning planning, and review. With continuity plans in place, process through a series of pilot projects.11 communities will bounce back more quickly after Similarly, in 2011, the United States Federal a disaster, with minimal disturbance to normal Emergency Management Agency released a functions. national disaster recovery framework that included a continuity plan. Subsequently, a state-level
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 63 64 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 6
Summary of Disaster as Opportunity: Building back better in Aceh, Myanmar, and Haiti
///Lilianne Fan///, Overseas Development Institute, Humanitarian Policy Group
The Background and Definition better than others exposed to similar hazards (Haiti, say), then there must presumably be structural of “Build Back Better” reasons why many more people die in some places than in others, and interventions blind to these By insisting that humanitarian assistance in structural problems will only end up perpetuating response to crisis should somehow do more than them. “simply” saving lives and alleviating suffering in advance of the next terrible event, the “building At the same time, however, build back better also back better” approach is the latest iteration of a raises a whole host of uncomfortable questions longstanding concern to link immediate relief with that the humanitarian community has yet to longer-term processes of recovery and development. properly address. What exactly does “better” Humanitarian actors and their donors have look like? Better for whom, where, and how? Who developed a whole host of concepts, theories, and decides—agencies, donors, governments, or affected approaches to express this ambition, from Linking communities—and how can these decisions be Relief, Rehabilitation and Development (LRRD) translated into meaningful programming? What are to “early recovery,” “capacity-building,” “disaster the implications of investing in build back better risk reduction,” “sustainable development,” and, if it distracts attention and money away from the most recently, “resilience.” That the aid sector has urgent and often overwhelming need to feed, treat felt the need to think up so many related concepts and shelter people who have nothing but the clothes is testament to the stubborn persistence of the they stand up in, and for whom “better” may well problems that these ideas and approaches were be a luxury for tomorrow, not today? Is it better meant to address. to build one earthquake-proof home, when for the same money we could build 10, 12, or 20 that meet On the face of it the aspiration to build back people’s immediate need for a roof over their heads, better—to use the opportunity of a disaster response but could be deathtraps when the next earthquake to leave societies improved, not just restored—is strikes? Is it right for humanitarian agencies to think common sense; after all, who would want to build in these ambitious, transformative terms at all? Do back worse, or simply reinstate conditions of they have the skills, knowledge, organization and inequality, poverty and vulnerability if the chance experience to engage in the long-haul complexity of for something better was at hand? Plainly, if some social, political and economic change? Is it ethical in countries (Japan, say) survive earthquakes much humanitarian terms to exploit people’s vulnerability after a disaster to drive social change? And to what central government and the local authorities and extent can questions of inequality be addressed by local communities. For the Rehabilitation and humanitarian aid at all? Reconstruction Agency (BRR) of Aceh-Nias—a special agency established by the President of Disasters can, perhaps, help raise attention to Indonesia shortly after the tsunami hit—build problems that need addressing, but does that back better also meant reforming governance necessarily mean that the post-disaster response in Indonesia through institutional innovations itself is the right time to take action on these that put transparency, effective delivery, and problems? Discussions of build back better have accountability at the center. For humanitarian provided neither the tools to help address these agencies, it was conceived of not so much in terms critical questions, nor the criteria against which of physical reconstruction, but more in terms of the agencies can assess the pros and cons of adopting a empowerment of local communities through a wide build back better approach. range of programmatic interventions.
“Building Back Better” in Aceh, In many cases, though, there was nothing distinctly Myanmar, and Haiti new about what was called build back better, and actual interventions were largely built on existing This report takes a look at how the term “build back good practices in the humanitarian sector. The better” was used and interpreted in three different massive amounts of funding available at once recovery processes. For example, while the term created opportunities to go beyond standard was used widely in Aceh, Indonesia, following the life-saving response, but also subjected agencies devastating 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, it meant to intensive pressure to spend large amounts of vastly different things to different actors. For the money quickly, providing the time neither for government of Indonesia, build back better was deeper analysis nor for longer-term program not only about reconstructing safer housing and implementation and exit strategies that might have improved infrastructure; it was also about peace ensured a higher level of sustainability. between Jakarta and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), as well as building trust between the
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 65 66 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The rhetoric of build back better was much less in Deciding When to “Build evidence in the response to Cyclone Nargis, which Back Better” struck Myanmar’s Ayeyawardy Delta in May 2005. When the term was used, however, it often referred Like its conceptual predecessors, build back better to already-established areas of work under the has been welcomed as an important advance in headings of disaster risk reduction and livelihoods, efforts to link humanitarian assistance and broader rather than signifying much in the way of new or developmental objectives in disaster-affected innovative approaches. Even so, there were attempts countries. In all three case studies looked at here, to make some of the same kinds of transformation, respondents agreed with the intentions that albeit on a very different scale, and ASEAN, the underpinned it, and all saw its value in enhancing central actor in the process of international political the longer-term effects of humanitarian assistance. change, did sometimes use the language of build This is curious as the case studies also reveal that back better to describe its role in using the response there was no common agreement on what build to create a political bridge between Myanmar and back better meant, or what it implied in terms of the outside world. Indeed, the atmosphere of greater programming. Although the phrase was widely cooperation brought about in the wake of Nargis employed by humanitarian agencies in all three studies, there was little analysis of what “better” also made possible a dialogue on the sensitive might mean in specific circumstances, and agencies and long-standing issue of rural poverty, and largely operated through existing frameworks, Myanmar’s institutional links with the region were methodologies, and programmatic interventions. deepened and expanded through its participation in regional mechanisms for disaster risk reduction A key lesson, then, is that, rather than embracing and response. build back better uncritically in post-disaster recovery efforts, humanitarian actors need to Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, there were be aware that it has multiple dimensions, both hopes that build back better would mean “doing technical and political, and may not be possible things differently.” The problem was that it was not or advisable in every post-disaster context; there entirely clear how to do things differently given the are many actors involved in almost all recovery requirements and architecture of the international efforts, and each will interpret build back better aid system, and build back better as a concept according to their priorities; and humanitarians did not help to elucidate priorities or potential need to understand their specific role within the ways forward. overall effort. This means that, while in some cases Haiti never experienced the kind of political it might not necessarily be the role of humanitarians commitment to build back better that was seen themselves to engage in build back better, they in Aceh and Myanmar. More so than in Aceh and should at least be “build back better-aware,” and Myanmar, the post-disaster recovery effort in Haiti thus cognizant of the potentially transformative was dominated by the international humanitarian effects of their assistance, in much the same system. While the national government led the way as the principles of “do no harm” call for an response in Aceh, and ASEAN took the lead in awareness of the potentially detrimental effects Myanmar—in cooperation with the government— of aid. This paper argues that build back better’s most important dimension is the transformation in Haiti the recovery effort was largely driven by international humanitarian actors. This shaped of political relationships. If that is the case, then the conditions through which build back better humanitarians should know the implications of was conceived, articulated, and deployed in the embracing it, and make an informed choice about aftermath of the earthquake. whether or not to do so. Input Paper 7
Institutionalizing the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment System and Recovery Planning in the Kyrgyz Republic
///Disaster Risk Management, Urban, and Water Supply Teams, World Bank Group///
Overview of Disaster Recovery high probability of seismic hazards, including earthquakes, land and mudslides, and avalanches. in the Kyrgyz Republic The structural integrity of most buildings has A post-disaster needs assessment estimates the declined, owing to the depreciation of the building damage and losses due to disaster events, as well stock in the region. Recent research estimates that as the impact of disasters on livelihoods and a powerful earthquake affecting the capital city of incomes, to fully define the needs for recovery and Bishkek could kill as many as 34,000 people and reconstruction. As such, it is an important tool in injure another 90,000. efforts to “build back better,” often describing how risk reduction measures can be integrated into the Despite the frequency and scale of natural disasters reconstruction and recovery process and related and emergency situations in Kyrgyz Republic, the investments. country did not have any officially institutionalized procedures or guidelines to assess disaster damage, The Kyrgyz Republic provides an example of loss, and recovery needs. The existing systems how resilient recovery can be promoted through of post-disaster assessment were outdated and institutionalizing the post-disaster needs arbitrary, and did not provide a holistic view of assessment and recovery planning system. A the financial and economic impact of damaged GFDRR-funded project in the Kyrgyz Republic infrastructure and lost livelihood opportunities. has been implemented in close collaboration with Therefore, post-disaster recovery planning was not government counterparts to improve the country’s based on systematic needs estimates. Furthermore, damage and needs assessment system for recovery planning, based on international best practices. disaster recovery and reconstruction efforts usually This paper describes how resilient recovery can be did not include measures for longer-term disaster enhanced through institutionalizing post-disaster risk reduction. needs assessments and recovery planning, and Before the project, roughly eight different provides useful lessons learned through this process. government organizations and agencies could The Kyrgyz Republic is a landlocked mountainous be involved in developing a post-disaster needs country located in Central Asia and has a very assessment, such as sector specific assessments
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 67 68 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
produced by the country’s different ministries for supported by the World Bank Group and GFDRR, education, agriculture, and transportation. and included a range of development partners, such as UNOCHA and UNDP. Steps for Institutionalizing 2. ///Formation of a technical working group /// the Post-Disaster Needs Based on the national action plan, the government Assessment Process established a technical working group including all 18 line ministries and agencies involved in Working with the Ministry of Emergency Situations, emergency response, reconstruction of physical the National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, assets, and provision of social services. The and relevant line ministries and regional and local main task of the group was to help develop, test, governments, the process of institutionalizing and review a guidance manual for post-disaster the post-disaster needs assessment system was recovery and reconstruction, based on the global implemented through the following steps: post-disaster needs assessment methodology, but modified to the context of the Kyrgyz Republic. 1. ///Development of a national action plan for improving post-disaster assessment and Each member of the technical working group
recovery planning/// reviewed the existing methodology, and provided input to the chair on how disaster resilience and The Ministry of Emergency Situations and the risk reduction could be incorporated in recovery National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction of the planning for each sector. The group received Kyrgyz Republic led the development of a national technical assistance from a team of local and action plan, which articulates the required steps international consultants supported by the World to improve its needs assessment structure and Bank Group and GFDRR. methodology, as well as recovery planning standards and provisions. It also identifies necessary actions, key players, and a timeframe. This process was fully 3. Development of a guidance manual/// system will be included in the curriculum of the trainings that are given regularly at the Ministry of The technical working group developed a guidance Emergency Situations training center. manual by customizing the post-disaster needs assessment methodology to fit the country’s context. The prime users of this guidance manual Lessons Learned from the are civil protection commissions at the local level, Kyrgyz Republic Experience which have legal responsibility for conducting post- disaster damage assessments. This short manual The Kyrgyz Republic demonstrated that includes scenarios and explanations that introduce several factors contributed to institutionalizing concepts that were new to these commissions: post-disaster needs assessment systems and assessment of social and economic losses; needs mechanisms: strong leadership at the highest for restoring livelihoods; and needs for improving levels of government, the participation of a variety disaster resilience. The guidance manual also of organizations in assessments (especially the provides sector-specific guidelines to estimate end-users of assessment tools), learning from damage, losses, and recovery needs. international experience in conducting post-
4. ///Pilot testing the new approach using the disaster needs assessments, and a guidance manual
guidance manual/// considering the local context with local examples. The manual was pilot tested over a two-day period The key element for the success of this project— with members of the civil protection commissions and the greatest challenge—was to adapt the of Bishkek city and the Chui region, as well as sector specialists from various line ministries and international post-disaster needs assessment agencies. This pilot testing used disaster scenarios experience and methodology to the local context. designed specifically for the local context. Lessons The post-disaster needs assessment process is learned from this testing were used to update the designed to respond to large scale, high impact guidance manual. disasters, but is less suited to disasters that typically occur in the Kyrgyz Republic, which are small scale 5. ///Approval by the National Technical and Scientific Council and Inter-Ministerial and greater in frequency. Therefore, the post-
Commission on Civil Protection/// disaster needs assessment system for the Kyrgyz Republic had to be customized to ensure that The new post-disaster needs assessment system concise formats and templates were readily available for recovery planning was endorsed by the at local offices and could be quickly completed by National Technical and Scientific Council of the Kyrgyz Republic, as well as the Inter-Ministerial local staff. Commission on Civil Protection, which is the Finally, the concept of “building back better” was highest entity in the country for disaster response explained using illustrative examples and scenarios and emergency preparedness. The commission’s from the country context (using real past or primary recommendation was that a nationwide training for civil protection members and the imagined disaster situations), which helped the Ministry of Emergency Situations key staff should be participants understand the content far better than conducted. The new post-disaster needs assessment definitions or explanations.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 69 70 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Input Paper 8
Post-Disaster Recovery: A Tool for Sustainable Development
///Prof. Santosh Kumar, Director, SAARC Disaster Management Center///
Overview of Post-Disaster There has been a noticeable increase in high impact disasters in South Asia over the past four decades, Recovery in South Asia including earthquakes, floods, and cyclones. These disasters have led to substantial social, economic Disaster recovery is necessary for ensuring and environmental losses to the region and the sustainable development. A disaster can hinder affected countries in particular. The effects of not only a country’s GDP growth, but also climate change will further increase the intensity its development gains related to poverty and and frequency of hydrometerological events. human development. To restore economic and development growth and to avoid future losses, As a result, it has become increasingly important to disaster recovery must be implemented with design pre- and post- disaster strategies in a more inbuilt risk reduction mechanisms. This resilient comprehensive manner that integrates development recovery approach has helped to build institutions, agendas and climate change adaptation and disaster policies, and programs in South Asia, and has led risk reduction measures. to many long-term interventions and policy shifts in countries including Bangladesh, India, the The South Asia Experience: Maldives, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Experience has Key Findings shown that long-term disaster recovery is a good Thus far, 80 to 90 percent of all recovery programs entry point for making investments in mitigating in the region are funded through loans and grants risk and making disaster risk management more by either by the World Bank Group or the Asian systematic. Such investments, in turn, help to ensure Development Bank, with the remainder funded sustainable development. by United Nations agencies and country donors.
South Asia is one of the fastest growing regions Consequently, these funding agencies have been in the world in terms of GDP. At the same time, able to influence government policy and at times use disaster risk mitigation as one of their loan the region is one of the most disaster-prone in the conditions, which has worked well in favor of world. Natural disaster losses have slowed down resilient recovery. economic growth in the region, and as a result of haphazard development practices, risk exposure is In the absence of external funding support, increasing, making disaster resilient development a countries in the region often do not attempt to huge challenge. implement long-term recovery strategies. The creation of a recovery fund by governments would recovery and the inclusion of disaster risk reduction ensure that countries take action. In fact, in South measures into institutions, policies, and programs. Asia, the mishandling of immediate and long-term Disaster risk reduction initiatives in the region have disaster recovery programs has led to the collapse illustrated two lessons: First, in the absence of a of government structures, while efficient recovery large disaster event in the recent past, governments programs have improved people’s confidence in and donor agencies are unlikely to make proactive government. investments in disaster risk reduction. Second, in The paper provides case studies from Bangladesh, the aftermath of a disaster, there is often a large India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Two of these include: surge in disaster risk reduction investments, either in the form of immediate recovery or long-term
1. ///India’s Gujarat Earthquake recovery /// recovery measures that include money set aside India’s recovery program after the 2001 Gujarat for mitigation measures. Thus, post-disaster earthquake was focused on a build back better recovery efforts in South Asian countries have approach that included community-led recovery, led to a paradigm shift in the approach to disaster leading to a number of reforms in the manner the management. project was implemented. From the beginning, the government’s decision to fund the recovery Challenges and Opportunities program was non-negotiable, and led to new national legislation and disaster management Countries must develop their own financial institutions, such as a central government authority mechanisms or tools so they are not dependent and a seismology research institute. The program on the support of the World Bank Group, Asian revamped building codes and the overall disaster Development Bank, and other donor agencies. This response system was overhauled, from new will not only ensure that funding gaps are covered, technology to improved human resources. but that all recovery programs in the region are financed, regardless of support from international
2. ///Sri Lanka’s recovery from the Indian donors. In order to have a long-term impact,
Ocean Tsunami/// recovery programs should be seamlessly integrated into ongoing development programs, as well. Unprecedented destruction caused by the 2004 tsunami reconfirmed the need for multi- Furthermore, while recovery programs have sector, inter-institutional, and multi-disciplinary attempted to be more inclusive and gender sensitive, approaches to managing disaster risks in Sri program benefits are still not evenly distributed Lanka. As a result, the government, civil society among the affected communities, with the poor organizations, and international agencies have and marginalized often missing out. Future disaster acted collectively to develop a comprehensive and recovery frameworks must address inclusiveness as proactive disaster risk management framework, a guiding principle. rather than one that only emphasizes post-disaster relief efforts. The government enacted the Sri Lanka Finally, disaster risk management agencies and Disaster Management Act No 13 of 2005, providing policies have largely been responsible for managing a solid legislative and institutional arrangement for recovery programs, but it is important to integrate disaster risk management. The Sri Lanka experience recovery into the climate change adaptation and demonstrates a direct link between post-disaster sustainable development agendas, as well.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 71 72 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Bibliography
Bangladesh, Planning and Implementation of Post-Sidr Kumar S, Post-Disaster Recovery: A tool for Sustainable Housing Recovery: Practice, Lessons and Future Development Implications, Recovery Framework Case Study, World Lao PDR, Strengthening, institutional capacities for resilient, Bank, UNDP, EU and Government of Bangladesh, recovery, Country Case Study Series, Disaster Recovery September 2014 Framework Guide, World Bank, UNDP, EU and April 2014 Building Back Better, Case Study of the 2011 Christchurch, Mishra P.K. Learning from Disasters: A case study of risk- New Zealand Earthquake sensitive disaster recovery and rehabilitation in Gujarat Caillat A, The private sector approach of business continuity Mozambique, Recovery from Recurrent Floods 2000-2013, management helps demonstrate the benefits of Recovery Framework Case Study, World Bank, UNDP, EU institutionalization, The World Bank Treasury, Associate and Mozambique Government, August 2014 Member of the Business Continuity Institute (AMBCI) Newton G, Building it Back Better to reduce risks after CEPREDENAC, IRP, UNDP, and UNISDR, Pre-disaster recovery multiple disaster events, Queensland Reconstruction planning in Central America, concepts, advances and the Authority (Queensland, Australia) way forward Pakistan Earthquake 2005, The Case of Centralized Recovery Dr. Puente S, Towards a Comprehensive Public Policy in Planning and Decentralized Implementation, Country Case Disasters Risk Management for Small and Medium Size Study Series, Disaster Recovery Framework Guide, World Enterprises: The Case of Mexico. International Recovery Bank, UNDP, EU, NDMA and ERRA, May 2014 Platform, IRP, January, 2014 Philippines Typhoon Yolanda Ongoing Recovery, Recovery EERI and AGIES, The November 7, 2012 M7.4 Guatemala Framework Case Study, World Bank, UNDP and EU, Earthquake and its Implications for Disaster Reduction and August 2014 Mitigation, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California, 2013 Queensland Reconstruction Authority Building it back better to reduce risks after multiple disaster events, Queensland, Fan L, Disaster as opportunity? Building back better in Australia, February 2014 Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti , ODI /HPG Working Paper, REKOMPAK, Rebuilding, Indonesia’s Communities, After November 2013 Disasters, The Secretariat of the Multi Donor Fund for Aceh FEMA, National Disaster Recovery Framework Strengthening and Nias and the Java Reconstruction Fund, The World Disaster Recovery for the Nation Bank October 2012
September 2011 Republic of Yemen; Disaster Risk Management Programs for Priority Countries Middle East & North Africa, UN and World Gunawan I et al., REKOMPAK Updates: 2 year review of bank, 2009 Rebuilding Indonesia’s Communities after Disasters, The World Bank Senegal Recovery and Reconstruction since 2009, Recovery Framework Case Study: Urban Floods, World Bank, UNDP Haiti, Recovery from a Mega Disaster, Haiti Earthquake 2010, EU and Government of Senegal, August 2014 Recovery Framework Case Study, World Bank, UNDP, EU and Haiti government, August 2014 South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SARRC) Disaster Management Center Indonesia Institutionalizing Post-Disaster Recovery: Learning Takahiro Ono and Mikio Ishiwatari, Knowledge Note 2-4 from Mentawai Tsunami and Merapi Eruption, Recovery Cluster 2: Nonstructural Measures Business Continuity Framework Case Study, World Bank, UNDP, EU and Plans, World Bank Government of Indonesia, September 2014 UNISDR, Implementation of the Hyogo Framework of Action, Institutionalizing PDNA system and recovery planning in Summary of Reports, 2007-2013 Kyrgyz Republic, Disaster Risk Management Team for Europe and Central Asia region, The World Bank Yemen, Tropical Storm, October 2008, Recovery Framework Case Study, World Bank, UNDP, EU and Ministry of Public IRP, 2013, "Recommendations for Recovery and Works and Highways Yemen, August 2014 Reconstruction in Post-2015 Global Framework for DRR (HFA2)." Endnotes Photo Credits
1 UNISDR, Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, If not indicated otherwise, photos used in this publication SUMMARY OF REPORTS 2007–2013. have been sourced from the following locations with full rights:
2 The Disaster Recovery Framework Guide represents a joint and ongoing initiative by the European Union, the World Bank Flickr Website UN Development Programme (UNDP), and GFDRR for consolidating global good practices and lessons learnt on United Nations Flickr Website disaster recovery into a flexible guide. The guide includes country recovery case studies, which post-disaster All images in this publication require permission for reuse. governments can refer to for help and ideas with disaster recovery planning.
3 UNISDR, Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action, SUMMARY OF REPORTS 2007–2013.
4 GFDRR Haiti Case Study Draft, July 2014
5 Interview with Jean-Euphele Milce, former staff of NATHAT. World Bank, Port au Prince, January 30, 2014.
6 Alessandro Caillat, "The private sector approach of business continuity management"
7 Knowledge Note 2-4 (Takahiro Ono and Mikio Ishiwatari, World Bank)
8 Factors of Successful Recovery, NDRF, pg. 16
9 According to the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SARRC) Disaster Management Center
10 UNISDR, HFA Monitor Template, 2011-2013
11 Florida Department Of Community Affairs (2010), Post- Disaster Redevelopment Planning – A Guide for Florida Communities
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 73 74 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Glossary
Adaptation: the adjustment in natural or human Disaster: a serious disruption of the functioning systems in response to actual or of a community or a society involving expected climatic or other stimuli or widespread human, material, their effects, which moderates harm or economic or environmental losses and exploits beneficial opportunities. impacts, which exceeds the ability of Basic needs: the items that people need to survive. the affected community or society to This can include safe access to cope using its own resources. essential goods and services such Disaster risk The systematic process of as food, water, shelter, clothing, management: using administrative directives, healthcare, sanitation, and education. organizations, and operational Build Back Better: an approach to reconstruction that skills and capacities to implement aims to reduce vulnerability and strategies, policies and improved improve living conditions, while coping capacities in order to lessen also promoting a more effective the adverse impacts of hazards and reconstruction process. the possibility of disaster. Build Back Smarter: an approach to reconstruction that Disaster risk The concept and practice of reducing aims to reduce vulnerability and reduction: disaster risks through systematic improve living conditions, while efforts to analyse and manage the taking the opportunity to examine causal factors of disasters, including the suitability of reconstructing in the through reduced exposure to hazards, same location and making a home lessened vulnerability of people and warmer, drier and cheaper to run. property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved BCM: is an “organized series of risk preparedness for adverse events. reduction and risk mitigation measures designed to optimize the speed, Disaster risk A document prepared by an authority, the quality and the coordination of reduction plan: sector, organization or enterprise that organizations’ recovery in a post- sets out goals and specific objectives disaster situation. for reducing disaster risks together with related actions to accomplish Capacity: the combination of all the strengths, these objectives. attributes and resources available within a community, society or Early recovery: a process which seeks to catalyze organization that can be used to sustainable development achieve agreed goals. opportunities by generating self- sustaining processes for post-disaster Capacity building: A process by which individuals, recovery. It encompasses livelihoods, institutions and societies develop shelter, governance, environment, abilities, individually and collectively, and social dimensions, including the to perform functions, solve problems reintegration of displaced populations, and set and achieve their goals. and addresses underlying risks that Community: a group of households that identify contributed to the crisis. themselves in some way as having a common interest or need as well as physical space. A social group that resides in a specific locality. Early warning: The provision of timely and effective Key performance Quantitative and qualitative measures information, through identified indicators (KPI)s: of project outputs and outcomes used institutions, that allows individuals to evaluate the progress of success of exposed to a hazard to take action to the project. avoid or reduce their risk and prepare Livelihoods: the ways in which people earn for effective response. access to the resources they need, Efficient Recovery: steadying lives and livelihoods back individually and communally, such as to normalcy, and rapidly restoring food, water, clothing, and shelter. critical social, physical and productive Loss assessment: analyzes the changes in economic infrastructure and service delivery. flows that occur after a disaster and Effective Recovery: normally refers to achieving the over time, valued at current prices. intended outcomes of medium to Mitigate/mitigation: the use of reasonable care and long term recovery such as the diligence in an effort to minimize or rehabilitation and reconstruction of avoid injury; to take protective action damaged infrastructure and recreating to avoid additional injury or loss. The sustainable livelihood and income lessening of the adverse impact of generating opportunities. hazards and disasters. Ex ante measures: actions taken in advance of a disaster Monitoring: System that permits the continuous in the expectation that they will either observation, measurement and a prevent, or significantly reduce the valuation of the progress of a process impact of a possible disaster. or phenomenon with a view to taking Ex post measures: actions taken after a disaster has corrective measures. occurred to seek to make good Needs assessment: a process for estimating (usually all related damage caused by the based on a damage assessment) disaster. the financial, technical, and human Exposure: People, property, systems, or other resources needed to implement the elements present in hazard zones that agreed-upon program of recovery, are thereby subject to potential losses. reconstruction, and risk management. Financial resilience: Policy: is a principle or protocol to guide Housing: the immediate physical environment, decisions and achieve rational both within and outside of buildings, outcomes. in which families and households live Post-disaster A multi-sectoral assessment that and which serves as a shelter. needs assessment measures the impact of disasters Housing-sector an assessment that collects (PDNA): on the society, economy, and environment of the disaster-affected assessment: information such as demographic data, housing types, housing tenure area. situations, settlement patterns before Preparedness: the knowledge and capacities and after the disaster, government developed by governments, interventions in the housing sector, professional response and recovery infrastructure access, construction organizations, communities, and capacity, and market capacity to individuals to effectively anticipate, provide materials and labor for respond to, and recover from the reconstruction. impacts of likely, imminent or current Infrastructure: systems and networks by which public hazard events or conditions. services are delivered, including: water Prevention: The outright avoidance of adverse supply and sanitation; energy and impacts of hazards and related other utility networks; transportation disasters. networks for all forms of travel. Preliminary an assessment that provides Institutional The roles and responsibilities Assessment: immediate information on needs, Frameworks: of various tiers of government possible interventions, and resource for establishing standards and requirements. May be conducted as implementing resilient recovery. a multi-sectoral assessment or in a single sector or location.
RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 75 76 RESILIENT RECOVERY: AN IMPERATIVE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Reconstruction: the restoration and improvement, Risk: The combination of the probability where possible of facilities, livelihoods, of an event and its negative and living conditions of disaster- consequences. affected communities, including Risk Assessment: A methodology to determine the efforts to reduce disaster risk factors. nature and extent of risk by analyzing Focused primarily on the construction potential hazards and evaluating or replacement of damaged physical existing conditions of vulnerability structures, and the restoration of local that together could potentially harm services and infrastructure. exposed people, property, services, Recovery: The restoration, and improvement livelihoods and the environment on where appropriate, of facilities, which they depend. livelihoods and living conditions Risk transfer: the process of formally and informally of disaster-affected communities, shifting the financial consequences including efforts to reduce disaster of particular risks from one party risk factors. to another, whereby one party (a Recovery is a pragmatic, sequenced, prioritized, household, community, enterprise, framework: programmatic, yet living (and flexible) or state authority) will obtain post- action plan that ensures resilient disaster resources from another recovery after a disaster. party in exchange for ongoing or compensatory social or financial Rehabilitation: A set of measures aimed at restoring benefits. normal living conditions through the repair and reestablishment of vital Scoping: of or involving an investigation or services interrupted or degraded by a discussion to determine the effect of a disaster or emergency. (CRID) proposed policy or project would have on a community or the environment. Relief: the provision of assistance or intervention immediately after a Sustainable development that meets the needs of disaster to meet the life preservation development: the present without compromising the and basic subsistence needs of those ability of future generations to meet people affected. their own needs. Relocation: a process whereby a communities Vulnerability: the characteristics and circumstances housing assets and public of a community, system or asset that infrastructure are rebuilt in another make it susceptible to the damaging location. effects of a hazard. Characteristics of a person or group in terms of their Resilience: The ability of a system, community capacity to anticipate, cope with, or society exposed to hazards to resist and recover from the impact of a resist, absorb, accommodate to and natural or human-induced hazard. recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, Vulnerable groups: groups or members of groups including through the preservation particularly exposed to the impact and restoration of its essential basic of hazards, such displaced people, structures and functions. women, the elderly, the disabled, orphans, and any group subject to Resilient Recovery: builds resilience during recovery discrimination. and promotes resilience in regular development. Resilient Recovery is a means to sustainable development. See also Resilience, Disaster Risk Management and Disaster Risk Reduction. Response: is the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected.
Recovery and reconstruction are increasingly viewed as an essential part of a strategic disaster risk reduction continuum. When countries rebuild after a disaster with long-term resilience goals in mind, and incorporate disaster risk reduction measures into their policies, institutions, and recovery planning, they will suffer fewer losses when the next disaster hits, and progress further along the path to sustainable development.
Drawing from country self-assessments, field-based case studies, and technical papers from stakeholders and partners, this report analyzes the successes and challenges experienced by countries around the world in integrating disaster risk reduction measures into post- disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes. Evidence from Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Pakistan, Japan and other countries suggests that recovery presents a crucial opportunity for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction principles in development planning. To ensure a well- coordinated and resilient recovery, this report advocates for the development of national recovery frameworks to establish institutional, financial, and operational arrangements before a disaster strikes.
ABOUT GFDRR The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) helps high-risk, low-income developing countries better understand and reduce their vulnerabilities to natural hazards, and adapt to climate change. Working with over 400 national, communi- ty level, and international partners GFDRR provides grant financing, on-the-ground technical assistance helping mainstream disaster mitigation policies into country level strategies, and thought leadership on disaster and climate resilience issues through a range of knowledge shar- ing activities. GFDRR is managed by the World Bank Group and funded by 25 donor partners.
WWW.GFDRR.ORG